The controversy over the Lord’s Supper had shown that the Philippist position was inconsistent with genuine Lutheranism. As a result of this, the long-standing desire to unite the Lutheran churches around a common confession was finally realized. The work on this project, which was supported by a number of evangelical princes (there were political implications in this too), eventually led to the creation of the so-called Formula of Concord, which was accepted by most Lutheran churches. This statement presented the Lutheran position in sharp contrast to Calvinism. It also excluded the specific Philippist point of view, something which in no way contradicts the fact that the Formula of Concord was constructed to a large extent on Melanchthon’s interpretation of the Reformation. It is only on those points where Melanchthon deviated from Luther that the Formula of Concord takes distinct exception to the former’s position.
The Schwäbische Konkordie of 1574, written by Jakob Andreä of Tübingen, formed the basis for the Formula of Concord. Andreä’s work was subsequently revised by Martin Chemnitz and others, and as a result a common doctrinal statement was accepted in Württemberg and Saxony (Schwäbisch-Sächsische Konkordie, 1575). This statement in turn was revised some more by a group of Württemberg theologians (the Maulbronner Formula). At a theological conference called by Elector August of Saxony and held in Torgau in 1576, a report (called the Torgisches Buch) based on the two last-named statements was sent to the various regional churches for their judgment. At a later convention, held at the cloister of Bergen near Magdeburg, the Torgisches Buch was given a new form in the light of the opinions received. The theologians present signed this confessional document and sent it to the Elector. It was called the Bergisches Buchor the Formula of Concord, and it was subsequently signed by princes, clergymen, and theologians from the various regional churches and accepted by about two thirds of the estates of the Reich which had already accepted the Augsburg Confession. The Formula of Concord consists of a detailed section (Solid Declaration) and a briefer version (Epitome); the latter is based on an extract which Jakob Andreä made from theTorgisches Buch.
Why was this formula devised? To settle, in a manner consistent with Scripture and evangelical teachings, the doctrinal disputes which had arisen among Lutherans. The Flacian position with respect to original sin was rejected, as was Osiander’s doctrine of justification and Amsdorf’s allegedly antinomian concept of good works and the third use of the Law. The synergistic tendencies among the Philippists were likewise repudiated. The pure Lutheran position on the Lord’s supper, as developed by Brenz and Chemnitz, won the day. Luther’s point of view with respect to predestination was finally modified, insofar as Luther’s ideas concerning God’s omnipotence and hidden will in connection with the doctrine of election were passed by.
Through the formation of the Formula of Concord the ground was prepared for a uniform collection of confessional statements by the different Lutheran church bodies. This was accomplished in the year 1580 with the publication of the Book of Concord. This includes, in addition to the Formula of Concord, the following statements: the three ancient creeds, the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, the Smalcald Articles, the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, and Luther’s two catechisms. The Book of Concord replaced the collections of doctrinal statements (corpora doctrinae) which had been used previously in the various regional churches (for example, the Corpus Philippicum of 1560, accepted in Saxony, Denmark, and elsewhere). As an anthology of Lutheran confessional statements, the significance of the Book of Concord gradually came to be recognized even outside the circle of German Lutheranism. In Sweden an edict promulgated in 1663 recommended that pastors study it. In Denmark and Norway, however, it was not officially recognized, since the authorities there did not wish to bind themselves to the Formula of Concord.
Within the Book of Concord the Augsburg Confession enjoys a unique position as the basic Lutheran confessional statement of the Reformation era. The “C. A.” takes its place there alongside the three ancient creeds. According to the Formula of Concord’s own clearly expressed purpose, it had no intention of supplying new material to supersede the Augsburg Confession. On the other hand, in agreement with the Augsburg Confession and in accordance with the Word of God, the Formula of Concord was designed to provide a clear and fundamental analysis of some of the disputed questions which had arisen between 1530 and the 1570s.
The theological content of the Formula of Concord will in some degree be evident from the following survey of the chief questions treated therein.
In the vital Introduction, reference is made to the Scriptures as the only norm and rule to be used in all doctrinal questions. Mention is made here of the Augsburg Confession as “the creed of our time,” but it is also emphasized that all creeds and confessional statements are only a testimony of faith. They show how the Biblical doctrine has been preserved and how the Holy Scriptures have been interpreted in different times and in the light of different questions.
I. Concerning original sin: Against Flacius (whose name is not mentioned) and his supporters, a distinction is made between human nature and original sin. This is justified by saying that the former is created, redeemed, and shall one day be brought back from the dead. This can not be said about original sin, which is nevertheless a profound corruption that will not be separated from human nature until the resurrection.
II. Concerning free will: With respect to the function of the human will in spiritual matters, the Formula of Concord rejected Pelagianism in all its forms. The cooperation of the will in the conversion experience (synergism) is similarly repudiated. The “Enthusiasts” who claimed that conversion takes place by a direct illumination, without the use of the means of grace, received the same treatment.
III. Concerning the righteousness of faith before God: In regard to the chief question at issue in the Osiandrian controversy, it was made clear that Christ is our Righteousness, which is to say that God forgives our sins only for the sake of Christ’s perfect obedience, without respect to our works or to the regeneration accomplished through the Spirit. At the same time, however, true faith is always combined with good works, love, and hope.
IV. Concerning good works: Both Major’s thesis (“Good works are necessary for salvation”) and Amsdorf’s thesis (“Good works are harmful to salvation”) were rejected. Man’s good works do not help to preserve him in the faith. Good works are only a witness to faith and to the indwelling Spirit. Antinomianism, which held that the Law should not be preached among Christians, was also rejected in this article.
V. Concerning Law and Gospel: The antinomian problem is also in the background here. Is the Gospel only a proclamation of grace, or is it also a proclamation of repentance, which rebukes unbelief? The implication here is that the Law is not able to unmask unbelief. In reply, the Formula asserts that Law and Gospel must be carefully distinguished: Everything that rebukes sin is Law, while the Gospel preaches nothing but the promise of faith and seeks only to raise up and encourage.
VI. Concerning the third use of the Law: The problem involved in the second antinomian controversy is dealt with in this article. These are the three uses of the Law: to maintain public order, to lead men to a knowledge of sin, and to provide a norm for Christian conduct. The same law applies both to the regenerate and the unregenerate. It must be preached with power also among the faithful, inasmuch as the flesh continually opposes the Spirit in their lives. The one difference is that the unregenerate do what the Law demands only when they are coerced (and then it is done reluctantly), while the faithful, to the extent that they are born again (as “new men”), willingly fulfill the Law and do what the Law can never enforce.
VII. Concerning the Lords Supper: In opposition to the so-called “sacramentarians,” of whom there were two kinds—those who denied the Real Presence and those who held “that this presence exists spiritually, by faith”—this article expounds the Lutheran position as handed down by Chemnitz and Brenz. There is a physical presence, not of a spatial nature but a sacramental, supernatural presence in the strength of Christ’s power to be wherever He desires to be, even corporeally (multivolipresens). Because of this, the partaking of Christ’s body and blood which the Lord’s Supper provides is not simply the participation of faith in the heavenly Christ (cf. Calvinism) but a reception with the mouth, “though not in the Capernaitic manner but in a supernatural and heavenly manner” (manducatio oralis). Furthermore, Christ's body and blood are received not only by the faithful and worthy but also by the unfaithful and unworthy, “though not for solace and life but to judgment and damnation, if they do not repent and if they are not converted” (manducatio indignorum et infidelium). “This mystery is revealed in God’s Word and is comprehensible only to faith.” Article VII rejects the symbolical, Zwinglian concept as well as the Calvinist and Crypto-Calvinist points of view.
VIII. Concerning the person of Christ: The Christological discussion had emerged directly from the Lord’s Supper controversy. The doctrine of a genuine communication of attributes (communicatio idiomatum) was developed in opposition to the “sacramentarians.” The divine and human natures share in one another’s qualities not only in name but in actual fact. God is not only called man; He is man. Human nature has been raised to God’s right hand and shares in divine omnipotence. In the Solid Declaration three varieties of communicatio idiomatum are identified: (1) The attributes which belong to one nature also belong to the Person, who is simultaneously divine and human. (For example, we say that God’s Son suffered and died, even though suffering and death are characteristic of the human nature only.) (2) The offices of Christ (Redeemer and Mediator, for example) are exercised not merely in, with, and through the one nature but in, with, and through both natures. (3) The human nature has received divine majesty, glory, and power, which transcend its original attributes. The divine nature, however, has not been changed (since God is unchangeable) by its union with the human nature; its attributes have neither been diminished nor increased.
It is by virtue of the human nature’s participation in divine majesty that Christ (even according to His human nature) can be with His own perpetually, or be present in the Sacrament of the Altar. With respect to the subject of Christology the Formula of Concord also appended a Catalog of Testimonies from the Bible and from the church fathers.
IX. Concerning Christs descent into hell: This article ignores the difficult question of how this descent took place. It affirms the belief that Christ conquered the power of death and the dominion of the devil and saved the faithful from both. That is the essential point made in this connection.
X. Concerning churchly ceremonies which are called adiaphora: This question, which was posited by the Augsburg Interim, was answered thus: In times of persecution, when a clear confession is required, or when evangelical freedom is in danger, one cannot give ground to the opposition even in trivial matters.
XI. Concerning God’s eternal foreknowledge and election: It was asserted, in opposition to Calvinism’s double predestination, that eternal election refers only to those who, through faith in Christ, will gain salvation. The promises of the Gospel and the preaching of repentance are universal. The condemnation of the ungodly results from the fact that they despise the Word or cast it away. Because of this, their own evil, and not God’s decree, is responsible for their fate. The Pelagian concept, which holds that election is conditioned by man’s behavior, was also rejected. “For God has chosen us in Christ, not only before we did something that was good, but even before we were born—yes, this was done even before the foundations of the world were laid.” (Solid Declaration, 88)
The final article (XII) of the Formula of Concord provides a brief description of certain sects which did not accept the Augsburg Confession, the Anabaptists, the Schwenkfelders, the Anti-Trinitarians, whose teachings were rejected as opposed to God’s Word and the confession.
The Schwäbische Konkordie of 1574, written by Jakob Andreä of Tübingen, formed the basis for the Formula of Concord. Andreä’s work was subsequently revised by Martin Chemnitz and others, and as a result a common doctrinal statement was accepted in Württemberg and Saxony (Schwäbisch-Sächsische Konkordie, 1575). This statement in turn was revised some more by a group of Württemberg theologians (the Maulbronner Formula). At a theological conference called by Elector August of Saxony and held in Torgau in 1576, a report (called the Torgisches Buch) based on the two last-named statements was sent to the various regional churches for their judgment. At a later convention, held at the cloister of Bergen near Magdeburg, the Torgisches Buch was given a new form in the light of the opinions received. The theologians present signed this confessional document and sent it to the Elector. It was called the Bergisches Buchor the Formula of Concord, and it was subsequently signed by princes, clergymen, and theologians from the various regional churches and accepted by about two thirds of the estates of the Reich which had already accepted the Augsburg Confession. The Formula of Concord consists of a detailed section (Solid Declaration) and a briefer version (Epitome); the latter is based on an extract which Jakob Andreä made from theTorgisches Buch.
Why was this formula devised? To settle, in a manner consistent with Scripture and evangelical teachings, the doctrinal disputes which had arisen among Lutherans. The Flacian position with respect to original sin was rejected, as was Osiander’s doctrine of justification and Amsdorf’s allegedly antinomian concept of good works and the third use of the Law. The synergistic tendencies among the Philippists were likewise repudiated. The pure Lutheran position on the Lord’s supper, as developed by Brenz and Chemnitz, won the day. Luther’s point of view with respect to predestination was finally modified, insofar as Luther’s ideas concerning God’s omnipotence and hidden will in connection with the doctrine of election were passed by.
Through the formation of the Formula of Concord the ground was prepared for a uniform collection of confessional statements by the different Lutheran church bodies. This was accomplished in the year 1580 with the publication of the Book of Concord. This includes, in addition to the Formula of Concord, the following statements: the three ancient creeds, the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, the Smalcald Articles, the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, and Luther’s two catechisms. The Book of Concord replaced the collections of doctrinal statements (corpora doctrinae) which had been used previously in the various regional churches (for example, the Corpus Philippicum of 1560, accepted in Saxony, Denmark, and elsewhere). As an anthology of Lutheran confessional statements, the significance of the Book of Concord gradually came to be recognized even outside the circle of German Lutheranism. In Sweden an edict promulgated in 1663 recommended that pastors study it. In Denmark and Norway, however, it was not officially recognized, since the authorities there did not wish to bind themselves to the Formula of Concord.
Within the Book of Concord the Augsburg Confession enjoys a unique position as the basic Lutheran confessional statement of the Reformation era. The “C. A.” takes its place there alongside the three ancient creeds. According to the Formula of Concord’s own clearly expressed purpose, it had no intention of supplying new material to supersede the Augsburg Confession. On the other hand, in agreement with the Augsburg Confession and in accordance with the Word of God, the Formula of Concord was designed to provide a clear and fundamental analysis of some of the disputed questions which had arisen between 1530 and the 1570s.
The theological content of the Formula of Concord will in some degree be evident from the following survey of the chief questions treated therein.
In the vital Introduction, reference is made to the Scriptures as the only norm and rule to be used in all doctrinal questions. Mention is made here of the Augsburg Confession as “the creed of our time,” but it is also emphasized that all creeds and confessional statements are only a testimony of faith. They show how the Biblical doctrine has been preserved and how the Holy Scriptures have been interpreted in different times and in the light of different questions.
I. Concerning original sin: Against Flacius (whose name is not mentioned) and his supporters, a distinction is made between human nature and original sin. This is justified by saying that the former is created, redeemed, and shall one day be brought back from the dead. This can not be said about original sin, which is nevertheless a profound corruption that will not be separated from human nature until the resurrection.
II. Concerning free will: With respect to the function of the human will in spiritual matters, the Formula of Concord rejected Pelagianism in all its forms. The cooperation of the will in the conversion experience (synergism) is similarly repudiated. The “Enthusiasts” who claimed that conversion takes place by a direct illumination, without the use of the means of grace, received the same treatment.
III. Concerning the righteousness of faith before God: In regard to the chief question at issue in the Osiandrian controversy, it was made clear that Christ is our Righteousness, which is to say that God forgives our sins only for the sake of Christ’s perfect obedience, without respect to our works or to the regeneration accomplished through the Spirit. At the same time, however, true faith is always combined with good works, love, and hope.
IV. Concerning good works: Both Major’s thesis (“Good works are necessary for salvation”) and Amsdorf’s thesis (“Good works are harmful to salvation”) were rejected. Man’s good works do not help to preserve him in the faith. Good works are only a witness to faith and to the indwelling Spirit. Antinomianism, which held that the Law should not be preached among Christians, was also rejected in this article.
V. Concerning Law and Gospel: The antinomian problem is also in the background here. Is the Gospel only a proclamation of grace, or is it also a proclamation of repentance, which rebukes unbelief? The implication here is that the Law is not able to unmask unbelief. In reply, the Formula asserts that Law and Gospel must be carefully distinguished: Everything that rebukes sin is Law, while the Gospel preaches nothing but the promise of faith and seeks only to raise up and encourage.
VI. Concerning the third use of the Law: The problem involved in the second antinomian controversy is dealt with in this article. These are the three uses of the Law: to maintain public order, to lead men to a knowledge of sin, and to provide a norm for Christian conduct. The same law applies both to the regenerate and the unregenerate. It must be preached with power also among the faithful, inasmuch as the flesh continually opposes the Spirit in their lives. The one difference is that the unregenerate do what the Law demands only when they are coerced (and then it is done reluctantly), while the faithful, to the extent that they are born again (as “new men”), willingly fulfill the Law and do what the Law can never enforce.
VII. Concerning the Lords Supper: In opposition to the so-called “sacramentarians,” of whom there were two kinds—those who denied the Real Presence and those who held “that this presence exists spiritually, by faith”—this article expounds the Lutheran position as handed down by Chemnitz and Brenz. There is a physical presence, not of a spatial nature but a sacramental, supernatural presence in the strength of Christ’s power to be wherever He desires to be, even corporeally (multivolipresens). Because of this, the partaking of Christ’s body and blood which the Lord’s Supper provides is not simply the participation of faith in the heavenly Christ (cf. Calvinism) but a reception with the mouth, “though not in the Capernaitic manner but in a supernatural and heavenly manner” (manducatio oralis). Furthermore, Christ's body and blood are received not only by the faithful and worthy but also by the unfaithful and unworthy, “though not for solace and life but to judgment and damnation, if they do not repent and if they are not converted” (manducatio indignorum et infidelium). “This mystery is revealed in God’s Word and is comprehensible only to faith.” Article VII rejects the symbolical, Zwinglian concept as well as the Calvinist and Crypto-Calvinist points of view.
VIII. Concerning the person of Christ: The Christological discussion had emerged directly from the Lord’s Supper controversy. The doctrine of a genuine communication of attributes (communicatio idiomatum) was developed in opposition to the “sacramentarians.” The divine and human natures share in one another’s qualities not only in name but in actual fact. God is not only called man; He is man. Human nature has been raised to God’s right hand and shares in divine omnipotence. In the Solid Declaration three varieties of communicatio idiomatum are identified: (1) The attributes which belong to one nature also belong to the Person, who is simultaneously divine and human. (For example, we say that God’s Son suffered and died, even though suffering and death are characteristic of the human nature only.) (2) The offices of Christ (Redeemer and Mediator, for example) are exercised not merely in, with, and through the one nature but in, with, and through both natures. (3) The human nature has received divine majesty, glory, and power, which transcend its original attributes. The divine nature, however, has not been changed (since God is unchangeable) by its union with the human nature; its attributes have neither been diminished nor increased.
It is by virtue of the human nature’s participation in divine majesty that Christ (even according to His human nature) can be with His own perpetually, or be present in the Sacrament of the Altar. With respect to the subject of Christology the Formula of Concord also appended a Catalog of Testimonies from the Bible and from the church fathers.
IX. Concerning Christs descent into hell: This article ignores the difficult question of how this descent took place. It affirms the belief that Christ conquered the power of death and the dominion of the devil and saved the faithful from both. That is the essential point made in this connection.
X. Concerning churchly ceremonies which are called adiaphora: This question, which was posited by the Augsburg Interim, was answered thus: In times of persecution, when a clear confession is required, or when evangelical freedom is in danger, one cannot give ground to the opposition even in trivial matters.
XI. Concerning God’s eternal foreknowledge and election: It was asserted, in opposition to Calvinism’s double predestination, that eternal election refers only to those who, through faith in Christ, will gain salvation. The promises of the Gospel and the preaching of repentance are universal. The condemnation of the ungodly results from the fact that they despise the Word or cast it away. Because of this, their own evil, and not God’s decree, is responsible for their fate. The Pelagian concept, which holds that election is conditioned by man’s behavior, was also rejected. “For God has chosen us in Christ, not only before we did something that was good, but even before we were born—yes, this was done even before the foundations of the world were laid.” (Solid Declaration, 88)
The final article (XII) of the Formula of Concord provides a brief description of certain sects which did not accept the Augsburg Confession, the Anabaptists, the Schwenkfelders, the Anti-Trinitarians, whose teachings were rejected as opposed to God’s Word and the confession.
No comments:
Post a Comment