4. The cause of sin.
In fallen man, there is a strong tendency to blame God and creatures for sin, and thus to shift all or part
one question. This is the question that, according to Luther's process, can be formulated like this: Did the "hundred" naturally "grow five" or not? Those who answer with Luther to this question with No, judge accordingly that the a priori determination of certain "interests" is to be rejected; one must wait whether and how much "luck" (Luther's expression) the hundred have had during the year. Those who answer the above question in the affirmative, that is, who hold that the hundred naturally accrued five, consider it right that five percent or some certain sum be demanded a priori. Those who take this position within the Lutheran Church in America, however, mostly declare at the same time that it is required of love not to accept the stipulated "interest" if the hundred did not actually bring the "five". So they give away their fundamental theorem of the natural accrual of the fives and place themselves in praxi on Luther's fundamental theorem that the hundred does not naturally accrue fives. Why this side did not agree with Luther's theorem from the beginning has remained a logical and psychological mystery to us until this day. That Luther's sentence is correct, of it everyone can convince himself tangibly by the fact that he leaves hundred from a year and looks after course of a year whether fives were added to him. It is also important to note that we do not need the light of the Holy Scriptures at all to correctly judge the question of usury in the sense stated, but only an average use of natural reason, which has remained with us men even after the Fall, thank God. — 4. Also about the so-called "life insurance" much was and is negotiated. The fact that some Christians also find it somewhat difficult to get their bearings with regard to this question is, according to our observation, mainly due to the fact that they parallel life insurance and fire insurance. But these are two things which, on closer inspection, do not belong in the same class, but are so different that they cannot be compared at all. Fire insurance is based on the joint payment of a loss actually suffered, which is estimated and expressly determined according to its monetary value. To our knowledge, there is no fire insurance company that would insure a building whose real value is, for example, only one hundred dollars, for ten thousand dollars. So-called life insurance, on the other hand, does not ask at all about the financial value of the "insured" object. A person who may be completely worthless financially, or even a minus financial value for the family and for human society at large, can be "insured" for 2000 or 5000 or 10,000 dollars or even higher, depending on the amount of insurance the society accepts. The transaction therefore takes the form of a bet on the presumed life of the insured. A detailed exposition of the nature of life insurance, namely that it cannot well be conceived as an indemnity contract, is found in "Sentences
639 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The doctrines of man. [English ed. 533]
of the blame for sin away from oneself. Thus already Adam and Eve after the fall, Gen. 3:12: "The woman whom you gave me gave me of the tree, and I ate"; v. 13: "So the serpent deceived me that I ate." This manner is typical of the whole fallen human race. In doctrine and practice, questions such as these are continually raised, "Why did God create man with the possibility of falling?" and, "Why does God even now allow men to be tempted, since, according to his all-governing providence, he could very easily keep all temptation away from them?" These and similar questions have a tendency to confuse the issue of causa peccati.
According to the Scriptures, the cause of sin in man is a. the devil, who first sinned, then seduced man, and
on Life Insurance”, L. u. W. 54, 241 ff. (author: Dr. F. Bente). In the last thesis (37) it is also pointed out that and why it is sometimes difficult even for Christians to recognize the reprehensible nature of life insurance, and that therefore life insurance is not in itself, unless other serious sins are added, to be made the object of actual church discipline. It is rightly added, however, that proper instruction should not be omitted in regard to the customary life insurance. — What is to be thought of the public teaching and addresses of women? As is well known, in some sectarian circles this question has long since been transcended. Scripture passages such as 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:11-15 are rejected as the norm for our time because they are supposedly based on "oriental [Eastern] views”. Luther's position has also been questioned. But Luther is not an authority that determines our conscience, even though Luther, as we have already seen, says on the one hand that "reverence" (reverentis) is due to woman as the mother of the human race, and on the other hand very decidedly emphasizes that woman is not ordained to the public office of doctrine and government. What the Scriptures doctrine, where it concerns a Christian norm of life, is here again briefly summarized. Women are to be καλοδιδάσκαλοι [“teachers of what is good”] (Tit. 2:3) of children and before women. They are especially skilled at this because they "love children" (φιλότεκνοι, Tit. 2:4). But public addresses and teaching is forbidden them,, not according to Eastern, but according to God's view, because God says through His inspired apostle 1 Tim. 2:12: "A woman I do not permit to teach." God also gives two reasons for this: 1. Adam was made first, then Eve. 2. The woman brought a harmful innovation, sin, into the world. The popular calling to Gal. 3:28 ("Here is neither male nor female") is a blatant misuse of the passage, since it deals with the equal share in the grace and salvation acquired by Christ, but does not remove the difference of social standing. The same apostle who wrote Gal. 3:28, says 1 Tim. 2:13: "I do not allow a woman to teach," and 1 Cor. 14:35: αίσχρόν γάρ έστιν γνναιξϊν εν εκκλησίρ. λαλεΐν.
640 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The doctrines of man. [English ed. 533-534]
even now is the driving force with unbelievers and the tempter to evil with believers. Jn. 8:44 it is said of the unbelieving Jews that they are έκ πατρός τον διαβόλου, and 2 Cor. 11:3 in reference to those who are already delivered from the authorities of darkness (Col. 1:13): "I fear lest, as the serpent beguiled Eve with his roguishness (έν τή πανουργία αντον), so also your senses be beguiled of the simplicity that is in Christ." Because of the seduction of men to sin, the devil is called in John 8:44 the slayer of men from the beginning, άνϑρωποκτόνος απ' αρχής, and because the devil is prima causa peccati, the inventor of sin, we rightly speak of sin as the devil's work, and that also in the sins of men who are already faithful. The latter fact is clearly expressed when Christ addressed no less a person than Peter, when the latter wanted to keep Him from suffering and dying, Matt. 16:23 with the words, " Get thee behind me, Satan," ύπαγε δπίοω μον σατανά.1571) — The cause of sin in man is b. the sinning man himself, because being tempted to sin does not cancel out the perpetration and responsibility of the sinning man. This is clear doctrine of the Scriptures. Although Eve and Adam were seduced by the devil, they are guilty and will be punished by God, Gen. 3:16-18. According to 2 Thess. 2:9 ff. those who are seduced by the devil and the anti-Christian by all kinds of lying powers and signs and wonders remain responsible to God and will be judged by God. Matt. 18:7: "Woe to the world for the offences" it suffers, which does not make it blameless. The same is said to every man by the fact of an evil conscience after sinning, as in Gen. 3:8 Adam and Eve hid from God after sinning. About the causa peccati it says in the 19th article of the Augustana: Tametsi Deus creat et conservat naturam, tamen causa peccati est voluntas malorum, videlicet diaboli et impiorum.1572) Thus man remains, as the dogmatists put it
1571) The relationship of the serpent, Gen. 3:1 ff, to the devil, which the old theologians describe with the words: Serpens verus, sed instrumentum diaboli, should never have been questioned. Gen. 3:1, 14 the serpent is clearly described as a real serpent and v. 16 as the one acting through the serpent is called the devil, as the head is crushed by the woman's seed. So also 1 Jn. 3:8; 2 Cor. 11:3 and also Revelation 12:9: δ δφις ό άρχαΐος, δ καλούμενος διάβολος.
1572) That God, by His all-supporting and governing Providence, as well as by the fact that He rebukes sins with sins, is not the creating causa
641 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> Original sin. [English ed. 534-535]
(subiectum quod peccati), although he was originally seduced to sin by the devil and even now, as long as he does not believe in Christ, he is completely controlled by the devil (Col. 1:13) and cannot do anything but sin (Rom. 8:7). If it is asked where in man sin has its proper seat, it must be said: the proper seat (subiectum quo) of the ανομία is there in man where the νόμος originally had its seat and should still have it now, namely in the soul of man. The body is the seat of sin insofar as it is the organ of the soul. The contrary view, according to which the body, in contrast to the soul, is supposed to be the seat of sin, and the soul is deplored as an innocent captive, comes from paganism. Christ clearly states Matt. 15:19: εκ τής καρδίας come evil thoughts: murder, adultery, etc. So the heart is the real seat of sin and the birthplace of all internal and external sinful acts.