J f'+.). ( l 1 ; ~ . . 11. _ L ~ ., -.. Concou()io Theological Monthly DECEMBER 1950 ARCHIVE Concou(}io Theological Monthly VOL. XXI DECEMBER 1950 No. 12 De Ministerio Ecclesiastico Augustana V By F. E. MAYER There is room for differences of opinion where the doctrine of the means of grace may be best discussed in a textbook on dogmatics, whether under the Prolegomena, under the Prophetic Office of Christ, in the article on the Church, or as a separate IOCUJ. But it is essential that the indissoluble connection between the doctrines of justification and the means of grace be preserved. The order established by the Augustana must be maintained, for grace and faith are correlative terms. Article IV presents justification by faith, and Article V very properly continues: "That we may obtain this faith [described in Article IV}, the ministry of teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted." In passing it might be mentioned that the title "Of the Ministry" is misleading, since the article actually speaks of the means of grace and answers the all-important question: How is faith engendered? The doctrine of the means of grace is central in Lutheran theology. On the one hand, Lutheranism is distinct from Romanism with its sacramentalism and sacerdotalism. Rome anathematized the Lutheran definition of grace as favor Dei propter ChriJtum/ and therefore there is no need of a doctrine of the means of grace. On the other hand, Lutheran theology is distinct from Reformed theology, of which enthusiasm is a chief characteristic. Liberal theology is a natural outcome of the sixteenth-century enthusiasm, for it prepared the soil for the pantheistic mysticism of Schleiermacher's theology. Liberal theology is predicated to a large 56 882 DE MINISTERIO ECCLESIASTICO degree on the premise that there is no qualitative difference between God and man, and claims that the point of contact between God and man is in man himself. Because of its empirical orientation liberal theology does not hesitate to say that the voice of God can be heard as one shouts very loudly. The vox populi has been made the vox Dei. True, Neo-orthodoxy has checked this view to some extent. Nevertheless, as C. C. Morrison has recently pointed out, the dialectical theology is oriented in the liberal schoo1.2 The Fundamentalists lay great emphasis on the teaching that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. However, many of them have so overemphasized the Holy Spirit's immediate operation that there is little, if any, room left for the doctrine of the means of grace. The Lutheran Church, therefore, must steer a clear course between the Charybdis of the Roman Catholic opus operatum and the Scylla of the Reformed enthusiasm, and the doctrine of the means of grace has attained a central position in Lutheran theology.s The great heritage of Lutheran theology which the Lutheran Church must emphasize today is the doctrine as it is briefly stated in Article V of the Augsburg Confession.4 I "To ATTAIN SUCH FAITH GOD HAS INSTITUTED THE MINISTRY" 1. All Christians are agreed that only the Holy Spirit can engender faith. All Christians believe implicitly with St. Paul (Eph. 2: 1) that by nature man is totally blind, dead, and an enemy of God; that the natural man can understand nothing of the Spirit of God, and that the Gospel is foolishness to him. Luther had to emphasize this truth against the egocentric doctrine of Rome. He did so particularly in his famous De Servo Arbitrio, where every capacity for good in spiritual things is denied to natural man.5 In line with its basic principle, Rome believes that natural man must be credited with having so many spiritual powers as will enable him to know God without the work of the Holy Spirit. NeoThomists, such as J. Maritain, Christopher Dawson, hold that man can find God by employing his natural abilities and the God-given supernatural gifts. This is practically the same view which Moehler held when he said that the fear of the pagan may be defined as DE MINISTERIO ECCLESIASTICO 883 the beginning of faith.6 Our modern "superman," of course, cannot believe that man is by nature totally blind and depraved. NeoorthOdoxy has indeed denied to natural man the abilities which liberal theology ascribed to him. But in the final analysis Neoorthodoxy still believes that natural man has so much ability that he can recognize God at least to some extent.7 Lutheran theology teaches the total depravity of man.s In the Flacian controversy the Lutheran theologians were constrained to express themselves very precisely on this point, so that they would avoid both Synergism and Manichaeism. In his debate with V. Striegel, M. Flacius held that the image of God has been changed into the image of the devil, and made the extreme statement that original sin is the very essence of man. Incidentally Barth's view on the total depravity of man comes dangerously close to the Flacian error. In distinction from both Striegel and Flacius, Lutheran theology holds that in the area of the Law, man can learn something of God's essence and will. But in the area of the Gospel, man is totally blind, yes, an enemy of God. He cannot see that his sin in reality is nothing but a rebellion against the holy God, in reality an attempted deicide. The doctrine of original sin and man's total depravity by nature is to him an offense. God's judgment on sin appears to him to be wholly unjust, and he revolts with every fiber of his being against the revelation of God's justice from heaven. He places the veil of Moses over his face to shut off his view from the strict demands of God's holy Law, or he is constantly looking for a scapegoat for his own transgressions and loves to blame, just as Adam did in Paradise, someone else, even God, for his sin. It is indeed surprising how deeply modern man is involved in Greek Platonism, believing that he has by nature the capacity to transcend from the physical to the metaphysical, be that in Roman Catholic meritttm de congruo (of which Melanchthon says: "Pfui des leidigen Teufels, der Christi heiligen Tad so laestern darf!" 9), be that an enthusiastic dualism, which attempts to distinguish between the corporeal and the spiritual, be that in liberalism, which believes that man is essentially like God. Since modern man does not have the faintest idea of the true essence of sin or the greatness 884 DE MINISTERIO ECCLESIASTICO of God's wrath, therefore he has no understanding of the wrath of God nor any appreciation for the true meaning of the Cross of Christ. Lutheran theologians, yes, all Christian preachers ought to read and take to heart Luther's exposition of Psalm 90.10 This Psalm takes away from modern man that which he loves best, his own righteousness. I remember so vividly the chambermaid in the Tempelhof in Berlin who refused to understand how "der liebe Gatt" could be so cruel and inconsiderate of her righteousness. During our discussions at Bad Boll the problem which came to the foreground again and again was the preacher's earnest question: "Wie koennen wir unsern Volksgenossen das Gesetz Gottes predigen?" Modern man has again talked about sin and probably no longer glibly dismisses sin with statements like "sin is a quest for God in the process of evolution" or "a social maladjustment." Nevertheless the fact that sin is rebellion against the holy God is still a stumbling block and an offense to the natural man.ll But the situation is even worse. Where physical death has eotered, there immediately a vicious activity takes place, namely, a dreadful corruption. Likewise in spiritual death, Eph.2:3, man is being driven by the devil, and in his alienation from God he manifests his rebellious attitude toward God. In his entire being he repudiates, he resents, and he opposes God and His revealed grace. He cannot and, if a comparative degree is in place, he will not believe. In his conversion or regeneration man is like a stone or block, as Luther puts it.I2 For this reason Augustana II describes original sin as both "being without fear of God" and as "concupiscence." This Augustinian definition, describing both the negative and the positive side of original sin, adequately sets forth the total depravity of man in all his affections. It points out one thing particularly, namely, that sin does not consist in isolated acts. The basic weakness of Rome's theology is the fact that it atomizes sin. For this reason it is Luther's great contribution that he has presented sin, as it were, as a collective noun. Yes, that he speaks of original sin as "die Hauptst!ende," meaning that original sin is the source, the fountainhead, the summary of all sinY Sin is the inherent hostility against God coupled with man's boundless egocentricity -man's is