Full Text for Confessions 2- Volume 45 - Original Sin (Video)

ROUGHLY EDITED COPY LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS LC2 45 Captioning Provided By: Caption First, Inc. P.O. Box 1924 Lombard, IL 60148 800 825 5234 www.captionfirst.com *** This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. *** >> NICK: I recall that the Augsburg Confession Article 2 is on original sin. The Formula of Concord deals with the original sin in Article 1. Is there some significance in that both texts put this article so close to the beginning of their discussion? What does the Bible teach about original sin? What do other Christian traditions teach about original sin? >> DR. RAST: That's a really good question, Nick. Noting that both of these texts turn to this particular teaching right up front says that there's something important about it in my mind, too. So I think you've really put your finger on to something here. Why don't review real quickly what the Augsburg Confession said about original sin in Article 2. It said, "Likewise, they teach," our churches teach, "that since the fall of Adam, all human beings who are propagated according to nature are born with sin, that is, without fear of God, without trust in God, and with concupiscence. And they teach that this disease or original fault is truly sin, which even now damns and brings eternal death to those who are not born again through baptism and the Holy Spirit." And there's a condemnation. But for our purposes I'd also like to turn to the Augsburg Confession, Article 19, which also talks about sin but now in this case the cause of sin. It writes, "Concerning the cause of sin, our churches teach that, although God creates and preserves nature, nevertheless, the cause of sin is the will of those who are evil, that is, of the devil and the ungodly. Since it was not assisted by God, their will turned away from God. As Christ says in John 8:44, 'When the devil lies, he speaks according to his own nature.'" Now, obviously, the Lutheran Confessions talk about original sin and talk about the cause of actual sin, the sin that we do in our lives, the things that we fail to do in our lives. Is that an appropriate distinction to make? Does the Bible speak about these sorts of things? And then what is the nature of that sin, if this is so? Here, I think it's important for us to turn to several scripture verses that speak about the nature of things in respect to original sin. Let's start out with the Book of Romans, the 5th chapter and the 12th verse. "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin and so death spread to all men because all sinned for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given but sin is not counted where there is no law, yet death reigned from Adam to Moses even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam who was a type of the one who was to come." Now, what does this mean? Well, here I think what Paul is drawing our attention to is this fact that all human beings coming into this world are infected, are deeply affected by this reality called sin. We normally call it original sin. But, as you can see in the Augsburg Confessions, sometimes it's referred to as natural sin, that which comes with us when we come into this world. Luther sometimes referred to it as person sin or personal sin, this sin that we carry with us. Where did it come from? It came from the disobedience of Adam and Eve. Entered the world at that point and became the reality into which all human beings were born. This is affirmed by David in Psalm 51, the fifth verse when he says very straightforwardly "Behold I was brought forth in inequity and in sin did my mother conceive me." Now, David here very clearly makes the point that from the moment of our conception, from the moment of our birth, we are in a particular relationship with God, one that is at odds with God. That state of sin into which we are created puts us at odds with God in a very real sense. It's not simply a kind of amorphous thing that might bring forth some kind of activity. But, in fact, as the writers of the Formula will say very clearly, it is truly sin. And, on the basis of that participation, that reality into which we are born, that sin that is part of who we are, we are at enmity with God, at odds with God, rebelling against God from the very beginning. Now, what does this mean? How does this play itself out? Paul begins to reflect on this even more. I think an important way is when he writes in the Book of Ephesians, the 2nd chapter. This, of course, is this chapter we will turn to again and again as Lutherans when we talk about justification by faith. But here Paul sets up for that message by talking about the reality of sin. And, most especially, the reality of original sin. He says, "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience, among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh carrying out the desires of the body and the mind and were" here's the key point "and were by nature children of wrath like the rest of mankind." Now, obviously, here Paul is making a distinction between what we were and what we will become. But, as he talks about what we were, he is articulating the position regarding original sin, that this is a reality in which we find ourselves. And that reality, spiritually speaking, is that we are dead. Now, again, spiritually speaking, what are we capable of? Well, as dead people, nothing. We were by nature those who experienced the wrath of God because of who we are and because of what we do. now here is this distinction and Paul makes both of these here. He makes both of these points. We are by nature children of wrath because of our sinful character. And because of our sinful character, we actually commit actual sins. Sins of commission, sins of omission. It's very much like the Lord himself spoke of. He made this point as well. He did it very simply. He said, "Can a bad tree bring forth good fruit?" Obviously, the answer is no. If the roots are bad, if the roots are poison, the fruit that will be brought forth by that tree will be worthless. And, obviously, the Lord Christ's point here at this juncture is that, because of our sinful nature, we cannot bring forth anything spiritually good. Now, why make such a big point of this? Well, very simply, as the Lutherans understood St. Paul rightly, what happens as a result of this, what happens as a result of how one views the nature of human beings, will in large part determine the manner in which one views Christ himself and his work on our behalf. Namely, there are other traditions that have existed over the course of church history that have articulated different positions in regard to the nature of human sin. Perhaps the most obvious and one that consistently comes up within the discussion of the Lutheran Confessions is that of Palagius, a British monk, who argued, essentially, that original sin was, in fact, a falsehood, that human beings retained a completely neutral will that was not affected by original sin. And, therefore, they had within themselves naturally, innately, the ability to do spiritually good works. Now, the most important of those good works, of course, is in Palagius's mind choosing to follow God's law, to follow the revealed will of God and fulfill the commandments as he has put them for us. As Palagius would probably say it, "God wouldn't have said do this, if we couldn't do it ourselves." It would be unfair, other theologians would later say, for God to say do this when he knew we could not. In fact, that would make God into a terrible tyrant punishing us for what he does not allow us to do. So Palagius said the human moral will remains intact, and we can do spiritually good works on our own. Simply lay before the person the opportunities to do those good works, and they can choose to do so. Now, you say well, that's Palagius. And he lived way, way back, 1600 years ago. But, in fact, even on the American scene there was a theologian by the name of Charles Grandison Finney who lived in the 1800s who taught essentially the same thing, perhaps some ways went farther than Palagius. He said simply, "Religion is the work of man, it consists in this obedience. Simply show the person what God demands of them. Say, if you choose the way of evil, you go to hell. If you choose the way of good, you go to heaven. And they will exercise their wills to choose the good." So the problem remains with us. More subtle evidence of the ongoing problem is found in other traditions. For example, in addition to Pelagianism, the Lutheran Confessions sometimes also speak of semi Pelagianism. And here you get into discussions over basic points like who begins the process? Is there a small spark of good left within the human being that can make the first very initial movement towards God but, because of the reality of sin, is so weakened that it can't finish the job? Some would say yes. And, in fact, the Lutherans are critical of resume an Catholics in that respect saying you seem to teach that man can make the first move to which then God responds. Well, or is there the other option, that God gives a bit of a push and then says it's up to you to finish the job by virtue of your wilful obedience to the revealed will of God? The way the Lutherans come back to that question consistently is to say any mixture in that regard of human work with God's work compromises the work of Christ. Again, centering things in the work of Christ on our behalf. In other words, to confuse the doctrine of original sin is ultimately to confuse the work of Christ. And so they retreat from that and say, "We must be clear on this point, the scriptures teach it in this respect. God has spoken and has said the fact is we are born at odds are him, in rebellion with him. And it manifests itself in sinful thought, words, and deeds." Okay. So what does that all have to do then with the Formula of Concord and its teaching in regard to original sin? The way the Lutherans respond is really rather interesting, I think. They point out that, in fact, one of the things we have to do is recognize that this discussion of nature is at the center of things. In other words, this text from Ephesians, chapter 2 verse 3 that I read before is at the forefront. We were by nature children of wrath like the rest of mankind. How did we change from children of wrath to children of pleasure? How do we move from being those under the law of God to those who are now considered saved? This will be one of the key points here. And, in fact, in the 1550s there was an ongoing argument on this point. Some Lutherans said what was key in this respect was human action, some kind of activity on the part of the human will to move towards God. And other Lutherans would go back to the position of Luther and say no, the human will is in fact, the human subject is puri passive (ph) purely passive when it comes to salvation. In the context of this ongoing argument, there was a colloquy we've mentioned it before in the year 1560 at Weimar. And at this colloquy, the argument about conversion was continuing. How is a man saved? Why some, not others? That kind of thing. And, at this particular colloquy, one of the men who was being challenged very strongly, in fact who was being accused of synergism, teaching that human beings cooperate with God in their salvation, a man by the name of Valentine Striegel (ph) made a brilliant move in the midst of the controversy. He changed the question. Something debaters know that, if they can pull off, they can usually win. He simply recast the question as they discussed conversion. And he put it this way: After the fall of humankind into sin, is original sin actually part of man's substance or should it be considered accidental to human nature? So is original sin part of a human being's substance, or is it accidental? Now, if you know the processes of rhetoric, if you understand how the dialectic works and you know Aristotelian logic, you know that this language of substance and accidents has been around for a long time. In fact, Roman Catholics have used this distinction many, many years before solidifying their position in the 13th century in regard to the doctrine of transsubstantiation. You remember what that teaches. It states that when the priest says the words hocus corpus mayum, (ph) and at that moment the bread in the Lord's Supper becomes the body of Christ. It's no longer bread. It is literally the body of Christ. However, it is changed only in substance, in its essence, what it is. However, it continues to retain the accidents of bread, things that describe bread, like shape and taste and look and so forth. Accidents are extraneous to the bread itself, to the substance itself. You might put it another way. What's a table? How many legs does it have? Must it have four? Must it have three? Must it be a certain color? Or is it something upon which you could place a variety of objects and so forth? What it is is its substance. The other elements are its accidents. So Roman Catholicism had made this appeal to substance and accidents quite some time before. Specifically, in regard to the doctrine of transsubstantiation, saying, again, that the substance of body and blood had now, if you will, filled the place where previously there had been bread and wine. Simply the accidents remain. Now, here Striegel brings up the point of substance and accident, specifically in regard to human nature. Does original sin become part of the substance of human beings after the fall into sin? At this moment, Striegel, putting his question before this colloquy, draws Flacius forward who says yes, it does. In fact, Flacius puts it like this: After the fall original sin is not merely accidental to human nature, but, in fact, is the very substance of human beings. Now, why is this a problem? In fact what it draws forth, as I mentioned earlier in the course is strong, strong reaction from both the Philippists and those who are becoming called Genazio (ph) or true Lutherans. They are both very concerned about what Flacius has said in this regard stating you've gone beyond what is appropriate to say. Now why would that be? And, after all, hasn't it been part of Lutheran liturgies over time to say in the confession of sins, "I confess that I am by nature sinful and unclean"? What the formulators of the Formula of Concord do is work to make a very careful distinction on this point, a very careful distinction on the basis of what is substance, what is accident. But not to encumber the discussion with that kind of language but rather to affirm several points. The manner in which they do this is really rather brilliant, as far as I'm concerned. They go back to the articles of the Creed, and they state their position in regard to how God is at work in humankind both to create and to save. And their argument is really quite remarkable stating that, if, at any point, you say that in creation, in redemption, in sanctification that sin is part of man's substance, you've fallen into a basic and grievous error. How so? Well, let's think first in terms of the first article of the Creed. What does that article teach? God, the father, created all things. Still takes care of that. He created me. He gave me my body and senses and everything. So, argued the formulators, does that then mean, if you hold to the Flacian (ph) position that sin is part of a human being's substance, are you saying then that God created man's sinful substance? If you do that, you're making God the author of sin. Now, we can't affirm that. God as author of sin would make God the cause of evil, the actual evil actions that then result from the reality of sin. And so say the Lutheran confessors, this simply cannot do. We simply cannot affirm this particular point. They put it this way: In the solid declaration, article 1 on original sin, paragraph 34, the Lutheran confessors will say this: "First, in the article of creation, scripture testifies not only that God created human nature before the fall, but also that even after the fall, it remains the creature and work of God. Now, in this respect, as we've already noted, they're simply affirming what Luther has already said, that God created me. And he still takes care of me. But what they want to do here is make an extremely important and careful distinction. It actually occurs in the previous paragraph to that one we just read. They say this: "The distinction must be maintained between our nature, our nature as it was created and preserved by God and in which sin still resides and" here's the distinction "original sin, which resides in our nature." Now, what are they driving at here? They're stating very simply that God has created us. And what God creates is good. The problem is, because of the sin of Adam and Eve, there is something attached to our nature, deeply imbedded in our nature but not part of the substance of our nature, namely, original sin. Because a substance is something that can only be created by the Almighty. And our Almighty God, being by nature good and holy and righteous and just, can only create those things that are good, holy, and righteous. Thus, before the fall, man was created in a state where he could choose not to sin. However, with the fall into sin, you have a corruption of what God created good. And corruption is always the work of evil. Very simply, the formulators here are pointing to the fact that, if you affirm that sin is a created substance that resides in man, then you're actually giving credit to the devil as one who can create. When, in fact, Satan can only corrupt. Sin is corruption. Sin is the destruction of that which is good. Sin is something less than what God intended. It is not a positive action. It is not a creative action. It is something less than what was initially intended. And that's the point they're trying to make here that what God creates remains good. But, at the same time, they say because of the introduction of sin into the world in the first sin, in the fall, that that sinfulness attends to our existence necessarily and unhappily. Not as a substance, but and they'll say it as an accident. Something that describes our situation, is necessarily a part of our situation but, nonetheless, is not there by God's action. This, in their minds, has, of course, application when it comes to the work of Christ. And they say this very specifically. They go through the articles of the Creed and the explanation. Second, they say, this is paragraph 43 of the solid declaration, Article 1. "Second, in the article on redemption, scripture gives powerful testimony that God's son assumed our human nature without sin, that he became one of us in every respect like us apart from sin. Hence, on this basis all the ancient orthodox teachers held that Christ according the humanity he assumed is of one essence with us as siblings for he took upon himself his human nature, which is in every way identical with our human nature in its essence, substance, and in all its essential characteristics with the exception of sin." That is to say, if you see sin as substance, something that is inherently characteristic of the human person, then you must say also that Christ carried that substance in himself, that he was in fact sin. But, if Christ was, in fact, sin, then how could he pay for sin? And that's what's rejected here. Rather, what the formulators will say is that Christ, having been conceived apart from the natural process, by miraculous intervention of the Holy Spirit, took on our human nature without that accident of sin. He is perfect God and perfect man. Because of that, then, he can live the perfect life that we fail to live. And he can pay the penalty for human sin willingly and fully. If you make sin substance, you compromise the work of Christ, so say the formulators. Third, they continue, in the article on sanctification, scripture testifies that God washes, cleanses, sanctifies the human being from sin and that Christ saves his people from their sin. So sin cannot be the human being itself. For God receives human beings for Christ's sake integrates but remains hostile to sin for eternity. It is, therefore, unChristian and abhorrent, they conclude, to hear that original sin is baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, is sanctified and saved. The point again, that what Christ does is to redeem people, the Holy Spirit working through word and sacrament to make us his own. The reality of sin remains with us, continues to attach itself to us as long as we remain in this frail human body. But, in fact, the all sufficient work of Christ applied to us renders the not guilty verdict that God places upon us. And, finally, and really rather brilliantly, they use a fourth argument stating, "Concerning the article on the resurrection, scripture testifies that this very substance of our flesh, albeit without sin, will rise and that we will have and retain this soul, albeit without sin, in eternal life." In other words, if original sin is part of the human substance, then the resurrection of the body would be impossible for it would be essentially and inherently evil and at odds with God. But, because it is not part of our substance, God is able to redeem and to renovate the frail human body and turn it into what he intended it to be in the first place. Now, you'll notice, in outlining these four arguments, the formulators are pretty careful to avoid as much as possible this language of substance and accidents. In fact, they say pretty specifically, we shouldn't use these words because most of the time nobody's going to know what you're talking about. The last thing in the world you should do is preach using words like substance and accidents. What you'll end up with is confusing everybody including yourself. Add to that the fact that many of the authors who were involved in this controversy defined substance and accidents in different ways, and you end up with a mess on your hands. So they said drop it. Good advice, but they didn't take it. As they conclude the argument, they say we do want to be clear on this point. And we do want to make this point as substantially as we can. And so we'll say this. "The incontrovertible truth is that everything that exists is either a substance or an accident. Thus, when someone asks whether original sin is a substance or an accident, necessity compels us to confess clearly that original sin is not a substance but an accident." Why the big deal? Well, human salvation is at stake. The work of Christ on behalf of sinful human beings remains at the center. The formulators want to keep things focused on Christ and Christ's work on our behalf. They don't want to get pulled out into discussions of human beings and have those sidetrack their clear confession of the Gospel. So what's at stake in all of this? Well, the formulators wanted to make sure that we stay focused on Christ and his work for us. They want to affirm several things; that we human beings are in fact dead in sin, but that the substance of original sin is not present in us. Rather, original sin is an intrusion from outside. It's a something that has made us less than God intended us to be. It's something that affects us in fundamental ways. As though put it here, "It is a deep seeded evil, horrible, bottomless, unfathomable, and indescribable corruption of the entire human nature and of all its powers." But it's not part of our substance. It's a careful distinction but one that has to be maintained. Why? Well, because ensuing articles would depend on this, the freedom of the human will, the righteousness of faith, and above all the work of Christ on our behalf.