3. The knowledge of the divine law which binds all men.
No thought of the gospel of God has ever entered the natural man's heart, 1 Cor. 2:9. But it stands differently with regard to the Law of God. Even after the Fall of man, his conscience (σννείδησις, conscientia) testifies to the will of God. The conscience operates in two ways. It
636 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The doctrines of man. [English ed. 531-532]
has a. a revealing and demanding function, Rom. 2:15a: the heathen who do not have the written Law, ενδείχννται τό εργον τον νόμον γραπτόν έν ταΐς καρδίαις αντών, σνμμαρτνρονσης αντών τής σννειδήσεως [“show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness”]. b. a judging and condemning function, v. 15b: καί μεταξύ άλλήλων των λογισμών κατηγορούν των ή και άπολογονμένων [“Their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another”].1567) But the conscience no longer testifies with complete certainty to the will of God after the fall. There is an erring conscience (conscientia erronea); that is, fallen man considers permissible, even commanded, what God has forbidden (e.g., idolatry, Gal. 4:8: "You served those who are not gods by nature"; submission to the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:12: "that they should believe a lie "; murder of Christians, Jn. 16:2: "Whoever kills you will think he is doing God a service by doing so"), and he considers forbidden what God has allowed, e.g. the consumption of certain foods, Rom. 14:1 ff. Therefore, after the Fall, the immutable will of God is now known with complete certainty only from God's revelation in the Word, namely from the Holy Scriptures. Even though the actual head of the Holy Scriptures is the gospel (Jn. 5:39; Acts 10:43; 1 Cor. 2:2), it also contains a complete revelation of the immutable will of God, Matt. 5:18-19: "Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter nor one tittle of the law will pass away. Whosoever therefore shall destroy one of these least commandments," etc. From the Holy Scriptures it is also known with certainty which Laws had only temporary and local validity, e.g. only for the Jews under the Law covenant, and therefore are not to be taught as divine norms for all men at all times. A great and harmful confusion of consciences is caused until our time by generalizing temporary and local Laws. Examples: Ex. 31:14-15: "Keep my Sabbath. … Whoever does work on it shall be cut off from his people.” [Luther’s Bible] Deut. 26:27: " Ye shall not eat anything with the blood." Lev. 11 and Deut. 14: List of the unclean and the clean beasts. In contrast, the New Testament Col. 2:16-17: "Let no man therefore make you conscience of meat, or of drink, or of certain feasts, or of new moons, or of sabbaths." Result: The will of God to all men is only
1567) L. u. W. 22, 231 ff. [C. A. Frank] Cf. on conscience the quotations in Baier-Walther II, 269.
637 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The doctrines of man. [English ed. 532-533]
that which is taught in the Holy Scriptures as binding all men. These are also not the Ten Commandments in the version as they were given to the Jews (Ex. 20), but the Ten Commandments according to the explanation of the New Testament, as we have them e.g. in Luther's catechism.1568) It should also be noted that divine commandments given to individuals (mandata specialia) are not to be referred to others or even to all men, e.g. the sacrifice of Isaac, Gen. 22. In general, with regard to the lives and actions of the saints, what the Apology reminds us:1569) Ceterum exempla iuxta regulam, hoc est, iuxta scripturas certas et claras, non contra regulam seu contra Scripturas interpretari convenit.[“Besides, examples ought to be interpreted according to the rule, i.e., according to certain and clear passages of Scripture, not contrary to the rule, that is, contrary to the Scriptures.”]1570)
1568) Cf. Luther's exposition, St. L. XX, 146 ff. 1569) M. 284, 60 [Trigl. 441, 60 🔗].
1570) Individual questions. Do the prohibitions of marriage given in Deut. 18 apply only to Israel under the Law Covenant, or do they have general binding force? That this question must be answered in the affirmative has been explained in detail: Walther, Pastorale, p. 204 ff. [Pastoral Theology, p. 240 ff.]; Proceedings of the Seventh Assembly of the Synodical Conference, 1878, p. 5 ff; Lehre und Wehre 19, 295 ff; 22, 105 ff. — 2. Is Sunday in place of the Jewish Sabbath commanded by God or only church ordinance? Cf. the detailed exposition: "The Lutheran Church's Doctrine of Sunday," L. u. W. 10, 321 ff; 11, 4 ff. 33 ff. 65 ff. Augustana, Art. 28, M. 67, 57 [Trigl. 91, #57 🔗]: "Those who think that the order of Sunday is established as necessary for the Sabbath are very mistaken. For the Holy Scriptures have abolished the Sabbath." Very detailed material on the whole question and especially on the deviation of later Lutheran theologians from Scripture and Confession (on the part of Gerhard, also Quenstedt) in Baier-Walther III, 351 ff. — 3. On usury, cf. the quotations in Baier-Walther III, 358-366. Further: Theses on Usury. With appended explanations from Luther's and other theologians' writings. St. L. 1876 (reprinted from L. u. W. 1866, pp. 325 ff.). Report of the General Synod of 1869. Chemnitz deals with usury in great detail in his Loci, ed. Wittenberg 1623, II, 169 sqq, c. VI: De Usura. This very calm and luminous exposition, corresponding to Chemnitz's manner, is communicated in German translation L. u. W. 10, 171 ff. under the heading: "Martin Chemnitz über den Wucher." In-depth proceedings have also been held in the Lutheran Church in America on the "usury question." The understanding was complicated to some extent by the complicated terminology, some of which was used in different senses. One can read about this e.g. RE.2 XVII, 341 ff. under the title: "Usury, church laws about it." About the course of the proceedings within the Lutheran Church of America we have formed the following. Judgment: That lending to the poor or to those in need should be done without "interest" or "interests" was admitted on all sides. A difference emerged on the question of how to deal with lending to non-poor people for the purpose of doing business. Underlying this difference is the different answer to only
638 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The doctrines of man. [English ed. 533]