ROUGHLY EDITED COPY LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS LC2 44 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. *** >> DAVID: Thanks for that question, Nick. Dr. Rast's answer helped me as well. Dr. Raft, my name is David. May I follow up with a question? With all these different controversies that we've heard about, it's amazing to me that there is still a Lutheran church today. I can see now that the period from 1546 to 1580 was a very difficult one for the Lutheran church. How did the Formula of Concord work to heal the controversy in the church? Who were its main authors? What were their backgrounds, and what unique perspectives did they bring to the development of the text? >> DR. RAST: Well, thanks, David, for that question. It's right on the mark. In fact, it fits very well with what we were just talking about, these innumerable controversies that were facing the Lutheran church and forcing it to come to grips with its basic identity. Whether it was adiaphora, whether it was the place of good works, whether it was the original sin all of these different controversies that Lutheranism struggled its way through, all in a way contributed ultimately to the very clear biblically centered witness that the Lutheran church would give. Controversy is never a pleasant thing. But what we see in the 1560s and 1570s, as the Formula of Concord begins to emerge, is that at times iron does sharpen iron. And, in fact, the witness that the church gave became increasingly clear. Now, how did that happen? Well it had to happen with new leadership, very frankly. We've already talked about the place of Philipp Melanchthon and Matthias Flacius. It was really more than should have been expected of Melanchthon. In fact, it was perhaps unfair to thrust upon him the expectations that many people had in the period following Luther's death. He was a brilliant theologian. He had a brilliant mind and was very given to the academic task. In fact, he was called the teacher of Germany. And many of his students, many of the men that he influenced over the course of his teaching career at Wittenberg, would later on take what they had learned from him and apply it not new circumstances and situations in a very positive way. On the other hand, Melanchthon also had a very irenic kind of disposition. What I mean by that is he did not seek out controversy. In fact, he sought ways to heal the breaches between the various Christian traditions. Certainly, that's clear in his work, the Augsburg Confession, as he strives to bring together Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism as they appear to be departing from one another. But that was also the case for Melanchthon as the Reformed tradition began to develop, especially in the 1530s and 1540s. He worried over the continuing fracturing of the Christian tradition in western Europe. And he worked vigorously to hold things together. Because of that, some have said he compromised. Some have said he was not up to the task. Some have said he failed. In fact, some folks have been largely incharitable and said it's all Melanchthon's fault that all these problems happened. That, very frankly, in my opinion, as an historian, overstates the case. However, he was admittedly a man of his times. He did have a unique personality. He did have his own theological commitments. And so, as long as Melanchthon remained on the scene, it was unlikely that the breaches would be healed. That was equally true of Flacius, who saw himself more in the line of Luther, kind of the bull in the china shop, if you will. Always pushing the issue saying we must stand on principle, make the firm stand, and make that statement regardless of what the consequences may be. He also went one step farther condemning those whom he did not believe made the good confession. And so you had these deep divisions that existed within the Lutheran tradition as long as Flacius and Melanchthon were around. However, with their passing around the year 1560, things begin to change. And the new generation of leaders begins to emerge. Perhaps chief among them is a man named Jacob Andreae, at least in the early period. Andreae is a Lutheran theologian, teacher, professor, well recognized for both his academic capabilities as well as his pastoral capabilities. He weds the two together in the best possible sense. Already in the late 1550s Andreae is looking for ways to bring the divided Lutherans together. Sometime in the late 1550s, it appears he comes into contact with another Lutheran theologian, a man by the name of Martin Kemnitz. Kemnitz brings a brilliant systematic mind to the entire operation. And where Andreae perhaps has the more pastoral perspective, Kemnitz brings the very clear and concise dialectic ability. That is to say, he can distinguish very clearly what is at stake within a theological argument. Now, that's not to say that Kemnitz wasn't pastoral. He did function as superintendent over a number of the churches. No question about that. He was very much involved in the life of the church. And I think that's an important point to realize with both of these men. They were not only theologians. They were pastors, and they were concerned with the church's well being. There were others as well. Several I'll name at this point, most of whom were younger. Though, the first, man by the name of Johann Brenz, did, in fact, predate most of the other men. Others included David Chytreaus, Kristof, Joaquin Merlin, and of course Nicholas Selnecker. (ph) Especially these latter would have an important role to play, ultimately, in the formation of the Book of Concord. Now, what's at stake here? Already in the 1550s, division is so clear between the Lutherans that they begin to work for rapprochement. After the Peace of Augsburg 1555, there is an attempt at bringing, in fact, Lutherans and Roman Catholics back together. I put it before that it gave the Lutherans room to kind of solidify their position. And, in fact, in the year 1557, at a diet at the city of Reagansberg, the Lutherans came together with the Roman Catholics and attempted to begin the process of working out their theological differences. Sadly, it didn't work. What it showed was that the differences between Lutheranism and the Roman Catholic tradition remained and that there were some substantial differences between the Lutherans themselves. A later meeting in the summer of 1557 at Frankfurt was attended by the Lutherans only. It was the idea for this Frankfurt meeting was to bring the Lutherans together, work out their differences before they returned to speak with the Roman Catholics. They did that then in September of 1557 at a meeting at Worms. Unfortunately, that meeting was a debacle for the Lutherans. The Roman Catholics, represented by the Jesuit order, began to mock the Lutherans at this point in time saying, "Do you even agree on the Augsburg Confession? What is it is? What it teaches?" In fact, some began to press for rescinding the Peace of Augsburg 1555 because the Lutherans no longer seemed to agree on the Augsburg Confession. They themselves had compromised their own document. It looked pretty bleak. And, in fact, the sparring continued. The story of the 1560s is one of ongoing conflict. In some cases, Lutherans departing entirely from the Lutheran confession. This happens in a section of Germany called the Palatinate when its leader, Frederick the III, in the early 1560s, actually leaves the Lutheran tradition for the Reformed tradition. Under his leadership Ursinus writes the Heidelberg Catechism, and a section of Germany now officially becomes Reformed. Now, what's at stake here? Well, if you've never read the Heidelberg Catechism, if you were to pick it up, in a lot of cases you would think, "Huh, sounds a lot like Luther's small catechism." And you'd be right. In fact, in many ways I believe the Heidelberg Catechism intentionally picks up the language of Luther. However, on several points there are divergences that will become especially important. In fact, they are becoming more and more important not only between the Lutherans and Reformed, but also within and among the Lutherans, specifically, in regard to baptism and in regard to the presence of Christ in the sacrament of the altar. Now, in the Heidelberg catechism, which is a Reformed document, the practice of infant baptism is certainly affirmed. But baptism is seen more as an initiatory rite into a covenantal relationship between the human subject and God. Later, that relationship may bear fruit in terms of true conversion and faith. But, at the point of baptism, it simply brings the child into a covenantal relationship with God that sometime later may bring forth full fruit. The, Lutherans, on the other hand, would say what? Looking to Luther and the small catechism would say what does baptism give or profit? Well, it delivers from sin, death, and hell. It indeed make the child just that, a child of God. Forgiving sins, putting the name of God upon them and making them a member of the church. So important point of divergence emerged there. What really became the pointed issue, however, was the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. In the Heidelberg catechism, the influence of John Calvin becomes evident. And the influence of some Lutherans who had been influenced by John Calvin is also evident. Where Luther will say very vigorously in the section of the Lord's Supper in the catechism, it is the true body and blood of Christ given under the forms of bread and wine and that it does provide remission of sins, it does give forgiveness of sins, in the Heidelberg Catechism, there's a step back from that vigorous confession of Christ's true presence. The Reformed said we agree as to presence. What we disagree on is in regard to the mode of Christ's presence. But isn't that a debate between theologians? And one that should not work to divide the church, they again asked? In fact, they said, if you look back to the work of Philipp Melanchthon, you will find at points where he seems to move in that direction in regards to his own thinking respecting the Lord's Supper. Could it be that it is appropriate or at least allowable that Lutherans could have a divergence of opinion on this particular point and still be under the larger blanket of the Augsburg Confession? Original form said yes, particularly when they began to appeal to Melanchthon's revised Augsburg Confession, the so called variate (ph). So the controversy erupted. Is the tenet of Lutheranism big enough to include those who simply believe in a spiritual presence of Christ, not a sacramental or corporeal presence of Christ? Some said yes; others said no. With the move of the palatinate into the Reformed camp, an important move had been made. And the controversy simply continued. That was also true in regard to considerations of things like the freedom of the human will and the place of the human being in conversion. Discussions on this matter continued a pace; and, in fact, no resolution could be achieved. By the latter part of the 1560s, things had become so intense that a colloquium was held, the city of Ladinberg (ph) 1568, as a matter of fact, bringing together a variety of participants in the hope of working through these problems. Jacob Andreae was present. He, in fact, made presentations later on to the Wittenberg faculty, which had been largely influenced by Melanchthon's position but had, in fact, gone beyond Melanchthon's own position. And he began to hope that perhaps the differences could be reconciled. Others responded to Andreae's optimism with less enthusiasm than he did. And, as Andreae came into the orbit of Martin Kemnitz, more and more finally in 1573, he began the process of articulating what truly was at stake. He published in that year a little booklet called "Six Sermons on the Points in Controversy." And in this he discussed five particular theological points. They were the doctrine of justification, good works, free will, the question of adiaphora, and finally the Lord's Supper. So these five articles were the ones with which Andreae began. With the publication of the Six Sermons and their its dissemination, others began to respond. And this generated some real energy towards finally resolving the issues. In fact, if 1574 the Swabian Concord resulted from a joint meeting to consider Andreae's six sermons. The Swabian Concord, however, expanded the issues at stake and, in fact, articulated its positions in 11 articles. In many ways this is the direct predecessor text to the Formula of Concord and solid declaration. However, you can see Six Sermons was a personal document coming from Andreae. The Swabian Concord was a local, if you will, kind of confession or series of articles. And so, for the sake of unity and concord in the church, the Swabian Concord itself was disseminated and it was hoped would draw some responses from those around Germany. It did, in fact. And by the year 1575 the Saxon Swabian Concord would be the result. Simply put, after the Swabian Concord was submitted to the Saxon group, Kemnitz and Chytreaus would offer some serious and important articulations of position on two points specifically. One was the Lord's Supper, the other the freedom of the will. With this new careful work on these are particular topics, the work entered a new stage. There was a momentum that had been generated. It seemed clear to many that what had been so difficult to grasp now was within reach. There were others in other parts of the Germany who were as interested in generating concord as well. And they contributed to the ongoing momentum of this move towards harmony. In 1575, Lucas Osiander and Balthazar Bidembach put together what was called the Maulbronn Formula. This was a much more simplistic, straightforward discussion of what was at stake theologically in Germany at the time. And it specifically addressed cryptoCalvinism, as it had come to be called. Now what is this rather cryptic reference, you might ask? Simply put, many of the followers of Philipp Melanchthon within the Lutheran tradition took what they believed were his emphases and pushed them to what they believed were their logical conclusions. In the process it's pretty clear they went far beyond what Melanchthon had intended. They simply said, however, "We're taking what our professor, our teacher, had given us. And we're simply taking to its appropriate end." What happened was that more and more within the theological faculty of Wittenberg, within key places, pastorats within Saxony was that cryptoCalvinism came to the forefront. Others have called it cryptoPhilippism. What's at stake? Well, it's especially pointed in regard to the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, as we were discussing it before. Simply put, it would later appear to many that a Calvinistic emphasis on the spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper had made its way into the Lutheran tradition and was being, by this time, passed off as the legitimate outgrowth of Luther and Melanchthon's thought. However, over time, more and more as this more and more came to the forefront, as the emphases of these particular theologians became more widely known, there was increasing resistance among the Lutherans to what they believed were the radical positions. That's what led ultimately to the Maulbronn Formula where you have a very concise, very crisp rejection of cryptoCalvinism. Now, you have Maulbronn. You have the Saxon Swabian Concord. The two then come together. First in the year 1576 in the document that comes to be called the Torgau Book. And, basically, what happens is you have yet another gathering of theologians, in some cases led by Andreae, who likes the Maulbronn Formula, thinks it's done very well simple, direct, straightforward. Without all the cumbersome kinds of theological arguments, Latin phrases, obscure references and like that had tended to be accumulated within the Saxon Swabian Concord. What Andreae is looking for is something that is not only theologically rigorous but also accessible to the reader. Kemnitz and others are swayed by Andreae's opinion. In fact, they press forward. This is the way we'll go. And out of that will come yet another meeting, this time in the year 1577, in Bergen, which produces the so called Bergen Book or, as it's sometimes also called, the Bergic Book. That simply is a more finalized addition of the Formula of Concord. Had it been run through the ringer, shall we say, of the opinions of many of the clergy and professors of Germany. The Torgau Book was sent out widely. Responses to it were asked for, and many were received. And, finally, you had Kemnitz, Andreae, Selnecker get together, work through the responses, think about the best way to present the text. Later on Chytraeus and others would join. And in May 1577 they were able to bring together a coherent text, our Bergic Book that then became the so called Formula of Concord. They signed off on it. They sent it out to the church and said, "Let's see what happens." So May 28, 1577, the Bergen Book is adopted; the signatures are attached; it's sent out to the church for response. And over the next several years a variety of responses are received. In fact, some positive, most positive. Some not so positive. Ultimately, about two thirds of the evangelical churches of Germany adopting it and finally, appropriately, seeing it as part of what should be the Book of Concord as a whole, which was adopted on June 25th, 1580. Now that's a long story, a long journey to get to the point where we are. And, in fact, I think what it's positioned us well to understand are the real trials that Lutheranism worked through. But, by the end of the story, what you see, I think, are some important things. What Melanchthon, Flacius, and the Controversies of the 1550s what was at stake was not only are we being true to Luther, but you had personalities involved as well. And in many cases, the controversies and as we'll discuss them you'll see this would center around a particular person who had a unique perspective. And whether it was Flacius, whether it was Gaeorg Major (ph) whoever it might be, you would find in many cases that personalities were involved. What Andreae, Kemnitz, Selnecker, Chytreaus, and the others worked hard at was removing the personalities and simply getting back to what was at issue theologically. Step number one in that regard was a return to scripture. Step number 2 for them, importantly, was then the Lutheran confessional documents that had been part of the Lutheran tradition since the late 1520s. And they make that point very clearly. In fact, when the Bergic book is completed, Andreae and others appended to it not just a long declaration of facts and positions but also an epitome, a shortened version that gets to the heart of the controversies. In this epitome, they bring forward their assumptions about the nature and character of scripture and the relationship of the church's confessions to that scripture. They say this: "We believe, teach, and confess that the only rule and guiding principle according to which all teachings and teachers are to be evaluated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments alone." The scripture alone, the sola scriptura principle that is so familiar to us as Lutherans, right here in the forefront. Scripture is the sole source, rule, and norm of everything we believe, teach, and confess. What then is the role of other documents? They go on to speak to that point. "Other writings," they continue, "of ancient or contemporary teachers, whatever their names shall be, shall not be regarded, shall not be regarded as equal to holy scripture. But all of them together shall be subjected to it and not be accepted in any other way or with any further authority than as witnesses of how and where the teaching of the prophets and apostles was preserved after the time of the apostles." Here you see the key relationship. Scripture alone is rule and norm. We often times use a Latin phrase to communicate this, "norma normans," the guiding guide, the norming norm, that which actually shapes our theology, our confession, our belief. Other witnesses are often times referred to as norma normata, that is guided guides, those things that are guided by the one guide or normed by the one norm, scripture. They are witnesses, if you will, faithful witnesses of what the church has taught as it has upheld the apostle's doctrine. Why make such a big deal out of this? Because this is what's at stake. When we look at Lutheran confessional texts, how do they relate to the Bible? Are they equal to it? No. Are they guided by it? Yes. Are they faithful witnesses of what the church has taught? Yes. In fact, Kemnitz with the Bergic Book had actually appended a kind of a text you might call it an appendix proper namely, the Catalog of Testimonies. While it was not included in the Book of Concord, what it simply did was affirm by virtue of looking to history the Lutheran position as articulated in the text. Kemnitz, a brilliant scholar, had spent a number of years as a librarian, and, as librarians sometimes do, read, a lot, and read deeply in these church historians and read deeply in these early church fathers. And he brought to bear their witness on the particular theological points that were at stake in the Lutheran controversies. He specifically addressed them, brought them forward and said, "Look. We're not coming up with something new here, we're simply faithfully witnessing to what the church has always taught." But, again, that's not scripture. That's something different. Then, finally, where do they go when they talk about important Lutheran texts? And here, because of the controversies within Lutheranism, the authors of the formula are very careful to note where it is they turn to in terms of sufficient and clear Lutheran statements of that Catholic faith. And they state it very simply, again, in the this preface in the epitome. "Number one, the first, the unaltered Augsburg Confession, which was delivered to Emperor Charles the V at Augsburg in 1530 during the great diet of the empire." Now, that's a lot of words to make a very strong point. Simply put, they're saying not the later versions, where things were changed, where Melanchthon sometimes made some theological modifications, language modifications, and so forth. They say, if you want to find where Lutherans spoke clearly on this in the first place, you go to the Augsburg Confession delivered before the emperor June 25th, 1530, first and foremost. Secondly, they say, the apology of these confessions. Third, the articles that were presented at Smalcald in 1537 written by Luther with the appendix, namely, the treatise on the power and primacy of the Pope by Melanchthon. Fourth, we pledge ourselves also to the small catechism. And, fifth, to the large catechism. And, in this respect, they make very clear, again, we're not trying to come up with something new but simply to faithfully witness to the church's biblical doctrine. That's their point. Notice how the personalities are not present. Rather, they put the focus on the church's confession drawn from the scriptures. This is a key. And, in fact, Kemnitz and Andreae in this aspect had been very important in helping Concord to come about and make it less and less about the personalities and more and more about the word of God. That's a good lesson, I think, for us in the present time where often times personalities intrude themselves into our discussions. What these can model for us is how to stay on topic, stay focused on what is at the center; namely, the word of God, what it teaches. And what we'll find now as we begin to move into the articles themselves proper, is that as they discuss what is at the center, it is always Christ, crucified, and risen again. That's the good stuff. Now let's get to it.