ROUGHLY EDITED COPY LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS LC2 52 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: The farther we get into the Formula of Concord, the more everything seems to be about Christ. Whether we talk about sin, free will, law and Gospel, Lord's Supper, everything seems to center in Jesus Christ. Am I right in this? And if I am, why is this so important? >> DR. RAST: David, you're right. And you picked up with what these authors have been driving us to, moving us towards, throughout this entire text up to this point. The centrality of all things is Christ, Christ crucified and risen again for us. Now, in this respect, the Lutherans are convinced that they're not doing something new, that they're not being innovative. They're simply being faithful to the scriptures. And in that respect, I think they are. I Timothy chapter 3 verse 16 really comes to the heart of the issue where Paul writes, "Great indeed we confess is the mystery of Godliness or of all religion. He, Christ, was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory." There you see the center, the center is Christ. Christ in all, Christ for all. Article 7 anticipated this in discussing the controversy over the sacrament of the altar within the Lutheran tradition. What that particular controversy revealed is that among Lutherans there were differing opinions as to the person of Christ. And these differing opinions as to the person of Christ, did influence the way theologians viewed the work of Christ for simple humankind. Now, that's no big surprise if we talk about divergence of opinion on Christology. In fact, well back into the early church we see these kinds of questions arising. One of the greatest threats to Christianity in the early church was the rise of Arianism. Now, Arianism was largely a discussion of the relationship between Christ and God the father, the second and first persons of the Trinity. But it had Christological implications. Arius argued that Christ was merely a creature, indeed the first creature of God, but that he was subordinate and in one sense less than God. As the Arians put it, there was a time when he was not. A time when Christ did not exist, therefore, he had to be a creation of God the Father and therefore, something less than God the Father. In answer to Arius and to correct his errant theology, the Nicene Creed was first drafted. And when it was first drafted, it had two articles one on the Father and then one on the Son. Later on, 381, the article on the spirit was added as well, rounding out the Trinitarian theology and the good confession of the early church. But by that time, other controversies had emerged and were becoming increasingly difficult. And these dealt with the person of Christ proper. Ultimately, two particular position positions were addressed and condemned by councils of the church, ecumenical councils of the church. One was the position of a man named Mestorius. Mestorius divided the two natures of Christ. He did affirm that Christ was true man and true God, but he tended to see them separated as one another. As his position would be described by some, it was kind of like gluing two boards together. The two natures remained in essence and functionally separate. They were literally only united in name. On the other hand, there was a name named Utikes (ph) who held that by virtue of the incarnation and the union of the two natures in Christ, there was a mixture or a confusion of those two natures and a new third nature, if you will, the divine human nature, was created. So that it was something different than it had been before either in terms of the divine nature or the human nature. The early church had to work very hard and very carefully to avoid both of these errors, instead using the imagery of the personal union, the gluteal personalis as they called it, of the two natures in Christ in the one person. And when they strove to find imagery that would get this point cross to limited human reason, what they chose to use was the imagery of an iron heated in a fire. And that is you see the iron itself, it remains what it is. But it's blazen to the point where literally it points the fire can be seen within the iron itself. The iron retains its property, the fire retains its property. The two are united in the one thing. But they admitted as much as they strove to make this point, it still was limited as an analogy. Perhaps a better one would be still limited but a better one would be the linkage of body and soul. The union of body and soul within the human person. A difficult point. But much was at stake within this. And part of the Lutheran point in this regard was to maintain this historic and careful distinction that would affirm the true humanness of Christ and the true divinity of Christ. For if we confuse those things, then the work of Christ would be at stake. What was the problem? Well, by this time, by the 1570s, Calvinism's influence was extending, as we've already seen. And one particular point within the Calvinistic tradition was coming to dominate more and more. It was a Christological point. And there was concern on the part of the Lutherans that the Calvinists were dividing the two natures of Christ, the human and the divine. This was because of a Calvinistic phrase, vinito non cap axe infinit, (ph) which means very simply "the finite is not capable of the infinite." And what the point was that the Calvinists were making is that human nature by virtue of its limited character and essence could not truly being united with the divine. The divine would simply overwhelm it and destroy the human. The Lutherans, on the other hand, said this does violence but two things really. Number one, the true personal union of the two natures in Christ, it divides them so there's not a true union at all. Simply like gluing two boards together. A hint at historianism. But, secondly then, what does this imply in regard to our own bodies as human beings in terms of the resurrection? What possibilities are there for us there? Our own bodies then are so incapable of the infinite that how can we say we're truly resurrected So, hence, implications for our own character as well. In response the Lutherans picked up some important distinctions and began to advance some important language as they discussed the interrelationship between the two natures in Christ. First, they addressed the problem. Is this a real union of the two natures? Is it a union in name only? And finally, why does it matter? And to do this, they developed what we call the three genre. Let me take a few minutes to work our way through these. The first of the three genre is the so called genus ideomaticum, or the fact that each nature, the human and divine, retains its own essential character as well as its characteristics even in light of the personal union. That is to say, there are things that are properly spoken of only in regard to the human nature of Christ that he is born, that he suffers, that he dies. Those things are properly applied to the human nature of Christ. To the divine nature, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent these things are part of the divine nature. These two things properly these two categories apply properly only to those two natures. So we very carefully distinguish between the two natures. But we don't separate the two natures. And that's where the problem really came in with the Calvinists. They would recognize the genus ideomaticum. But within the Lutheran understanding of the true personal union, Lutherans affirmed what was called ideomaticum. Namely, the communication of attributes between the two. And basically what they said was on the basis of the personal union, what was said of one nature could be said of the other. That is, because we now have one person in the incarnation, what is properly said of the human nature may also be said of the divine. Not properly, but by virtue of the personal union. And what is properly said of the divine may be said of the human. Not again properly but by virtue of the personal union. This, the Calvinists denied. This, the Lutherans affirmed. Now why is this important? Well think of it this way: Who died for our sins? That's the bottom line right there. Did just the human nature die? If so, was that a sufficient sacrifice for sin? Did is it proper to speak of the divine nature dying? You begin to see how these issues emerge. Properly speaking, we can only say that the human nature died because that is a characteristic of Christ's human nature. The divine nature in and of itself in its essence cannot die. But by virtue of the fact that what is properly spoken of in regard to the human nature is by virtue of the personal union therefore, also attributable to the divine. What am I trying to say? We say God died. Now why is this important? Because Christ has become life unto us in all things except sin. And it was necessary for human sin to be paid for that it be paid for by one who was truly God and truly man both. Without having both of those elements, salvation is not assured and there remains a question mark about the sufficiency of the work of Christ. We mentioned this a little bit earlier in the class, specifically in regard to Anselm's book, "Cur Deus Homo," Why did God become man? And the point was, to review, that God had to become a man because a mere man could not have kept the law as God demanded. The act of obedience of Christ demanded the divine nature be there. On the other hand, the payment for human sin had to be made by one who had kept the law perfectly but who was at the same time truly man. Hence, why did God become man? So that the all sufficient work of Christ would pay for all of human sin on the basis of his perfectly lived life. Hence, said the Lutherans, this is why we affirm the new personalis (ph) the communication of attributes between the two natures in Christ and specifically the genus ideomaticum that both natures retain their characteristics. Yet we say we can speak of one properly but nevertheless attributing that to both natures. So can we say God slept? Yes. Now that's properly spoken of in regard to Christ's human nature but it's a fact that when Christ was with his disciples on a number of occasions we hear he slept. Secondly, the Lutherans then go on to a point that has continued to be an issue between them and Calvinism on down to the present. Namely, the second of the genre, the so called genus myostaticum (ph). The genus myostaticum (ph) has proven to be a very difficult concept for many to accept. But, again, it proceeds from the personal union of the two natures of Christ. Let me read from the Formula of Concord article 8 solid declaration paragraph 12 so you can hear the words from the formulators themselves. "We also believe, teach, and confess that the assumed human nature in Christ not only has and retains its natural essential characteristics but also that through the personal union with the deity and afterward through the exultation or glorification, this nature was elevated to the right hand of majesty, power and might overall things that can be named. Not only in this world but also in the world to come.". That is to say, by virtue of the personal union between the divine and human natures, the human nature of Christ is drawn up, if you will. In a way, it shows us what we will become as the children of God, what he intends for us, what he has always intended for us as his own dear children. That by virtue of true union with the divine, Christ, according to his human nature can be present not just locally but in fact everywhere. His omnipresence is affirmed. Now no doubt here you can see the application to the Lord's Supper. Where Calvinism said the human nature of Christ remains located at the right hand of God, the Lutherans said by virtue of the personal, you know, the drawing up of the human into the divine by virtue of that union, the presence of the human nature of Christ is not limited to one place but can be present everywhere. Hence, when we say Christ is present in the sacrament of the altar, he is present not only according to his divine nature but also according to his human nature which has been drawn up to the divine. The characteristics essentially of the human nature are not been compromised, have not been changed. But the incarnation, the union, the true union of the two natures in Christ does something, if you will, to the human nature, and shows us what we ourselves will become through the gracious action of God. Finally, there is the genus opetelus moticum (ph) This is about the offices and the work of Christ. And it underscores a very simple fact, one we've already made actually. And that is that when Christ is in the world, when Christ has been incarnated and the union of the divine and human natures has been affected that all of his ministry on our behalf is undertaken according to both natures true God, true man. So that all of the divine is brought into the human existence, all of the human is brought into the divine. This is what the Book of Colossians means when Paul writes, "The fullness of the Godhead had dwelt bodily." Why? To underscore once again it is not a mere man that saved us from our sins, nor is it using the language advisably a mere God that saves us, but it is God divine and human, personally united for us. Like us in all things except sinning yet truly God in our midst. Now, what difference does all this make? Put such stress on this? Well think about the implications of this position for us as the people of God. It literally shows us the very nature of God. What God is like. The easy thing for God to have done when human beings fell into sin would have been to write off the entire operation and to exercise his judgment immediately. End of story. Instead, God shows his proper nature as a merciful and loving God by immediately within the context of judgment, driving Adam and Eve from the garden, in the context of that judgment, speaking a word of forgiveness to them. A word of mercy, a word of promise. You might say judgment, law, Gospel. And that word of Gospel is what? The seed will come from the woman who will do what? Crush the serpent's head, once and for all. And in Christ the seed of the woman is realized, true God, true man, in this life working for us. In all aspects at all times actively fulfilling the law for us, passively suffering the penalty for our sins, and triumphing in the cross specifically over the serpent Satan who would seek to destroy us. This is what God is like. This is what God does. Out of pure mercy and love he sends his son into the world to redeem us from all sin. Gospel. Good news. All for us, all for our assurance. And so, David, you're absolutely right. You put your finger right on it. That this is at the center of all things. And in fact, the confessors picked this up so well. The epitome of the Formula of Concord, article 8, paragraph 13 where they write, "Therefore, we also believe, teach, and confess that no mere human being suffered, died and was buried, descended into hell, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven and was exalted to the majesty and almighty power of God for us. But rather it was a human being whose human nature has such a profound indescribable union and communion with the son of God that this human nature is one person with the son of God." So in Christ, when you see Christ on the cross suffering, dying for us, when you see the empty tomb, Christ risen, when you see the glorious ascended Lord at the right hand of God, the point is God and man in one. You do in Christ see God, how God thinks of you, seeks you out, and forgives you your sin. No wonder they put that at the center of everything and thanks be to God that they did.