6. Objection: The Doctrine of Satisfaction Is Too Juridical.

6. Objection: The Doctrine of Satisfaction Is Too Juridical.

view that God has reconciled people to himself through Christ's vicarious satisfaction is too "juridical" and too little "ethical". Answer: This cannot be changed if we want to remain with Scripture. According to Scripture, the process of world reconciliation in all its factors is juridical. God's law is decidedly juridical in nature, in that it demands perfect obedience from man, Matt. 22:37 ff. Also the curse of the law that is passed on those who violate the law is unadulterated juridical, Gal. 3:10. Purely juridical is the submission of Christ under the law given to man, Gal. 4:4-5, because Christ stood above the law for His person, Matt. 12:8. Purely juridical is the divine transfer of human guilt and punishment to

maiestate et excellentia personae [Christi] compensatum est. [What would have been eternal among men was compensated by the very majesty and excellence of the person [of Christ].] (354-)355] Christ, because God made him sin who did not know of any sin for his person, 2 Cor. 5:21 The execution of punishment on Christ is purely juridical, because Christ did not deserve punishment for his person, but in him the just suffered for the unjust, 1 Pet. 3:18. Purely juridical or an unadulterated actus forensis is the divine act according to which God, at the time when he reconciled the world with himself through Christ, did not attribute to men their sin, uw AoyiCopEvos adtois TA TAPAATHLATA AVTOV [not imputing their trespasses unto them], 2 Cor. 5:19,!°°) and that through the one Christ righteousness for all people came to the justification of life, Rom. 5:18. Purely juridical is therefore also "the word of reconciliation" (6 Oyo Tic KaTAAAaYT\s [the Word of Reconciliation ], 2 Cor. 5:19), namely of the reconciliation already brought about by Christ, which proclaims grace or the divine forgiveness of sins among all peoples (Luke 24:47) and only waits for acceptance through faith. It is founded in the purely juridical character of the gospel, which proclaims grace or the forgiveness of sins, that it creates faith in man (1 mitotic 6€ axons, Rom. 10:17), and that man is subjectively justified before God by faith (sola fide), without any justice of his own (uu) éy@v Eur Sucatoobvvny Ti Ek vOpLov [not having mine own righteousness’], Phil. 3:9). It is on these purely juridical processes—as Scripture teaches us further—that all human ethics are now based, as well, about which the opponents of the juridical concept of world reconciliation are so concerned. Only after a human being has become righteous in a purely juridical sense, that is to say, through faith in God who that justifieth the ungodly (ézi tov Stkatodvta Tov doEB, Rom 4:5), does he love God and his neighbor, and so he begins to fulfill God's law. All those who want to "ethically" transform the purely "juridical" character of reconciliation and justification both make justification impossible (‘(Ocot yap && épy@v vonov sioiv 010 Katapav siotv, Gal. 3:10), and also deprive sanctification of its foundation (Guaptia yap Dudv od Kuptebosl OD YAP EOTE DO VOLLOV GAAG v0 yaptv [For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace] Rom. 6:14). Thus we stand before the result that all who want to push aside the juridical character of world reconciliation and its appropriation with their criticism are consciously or unconsciously engaged in the sad enterprise

regarding the sins of man. of eliminating the whole Christian doctrine as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. When von Hofmann denied the vicarious satisfaction and polemicized against the "juridical" character of it, Theodosius Harnack wrote very correctly: "If it [the doctrine of reconciliation of the Lutheran confession] should be reproached for having introduced a juridical view of world reconciliation with the concept of satisfaction, this reproach, as far as it is well-founded, falls back on Scripture... The representation of our symbols can therefore only be eliminated after the concepts of justice and holiness of God, law and conscience, guilt, punishment and judgment, mediator, ransom and attribution have been removed from Scripture.!° All polemics against the "juridical view" of world reconciliation cease as soon as this process is judged according to Scripture. Historical facts about the doctrine of vicarious satisfaction. % The vicarious satisfaction has been partly denied completely, partly restricted and mutilated in the course of time. The satisfactio vicaria completely denies all deniers of the divinity of Christ from the apostolic time on (1 Joh. 4:2 ff.; 1,1 ff.; 6:20; Joh. 1:1 ff.) up to our time (Eliot [of Harvard], Ritschl, A. Harnack). This is quite consistent. Every mere man needs his own justice, no matter how "absolute", "bad", "unique" or otherwise under the "influence" of God. According to Scripture (Gal 4:4-5; Rom 5:10; 1 John 1:7), the weight of the Godhead is part of the vicarious satisfaction. All deniers of the divinity of Christ attach to the life and suffering of Christ only the meaning that through it people are stimulated to their own efforts of virtue and in this way reconcile themselves with God. — The deniers of vicarious satisfaction also include Abelard (+

exemplary with his denial of the doctrine of the Scriptures. According to Abelard, the Son of God did not come into the flesh in order to do enough for the righteousness of God, but in order to give people the highest proof of the

Historical facts about the doctrine of the satisfactio vicaria. divine love through teaching and example (especially through his death) and thus to awaken love in them. Through the love for God thus awakened, people then become reconciled with God and become righteous. Abelard calls the teaching that God is reconciled with the world through the blood of the innocent Christ "cruel and unjust".!° Abelard's doctrine of a revelation of God's love through Christ without a vicarious satisfaction of Christ is closely followed by Albrecht Ritschl (+ 1889)!°°° Ritschl teaches in our time: In God there is no wrath over the sin of man. So there is also no need for vicarious satisfaction on the part of Christ. Christ's actions and sufferings have the purpose of revealing God's fatherly attitude to people and thus teaching them the conviction that they need not fear God because of their sins. When people have come to this conviction, their reconciliation is accomplished. The objective reconciliation is here completely transformed into a subjective one. Boehl aptly says about the characterization of Ritschl's doctrine of reconciliation: "At Ritschl's hand we find ourselves in the pleasant position of no longer knowing the wrath of God. 1° Boehl calls Ritschl "Socinus redivivus".!°°®

videtur quod in hoc justificati sumus in sanguine Christi et Deo reconciliati, quod per hanc singular gratiam nobis exhibitam, quod Filius suus nostram susceperit naturam et in ipsa nos tam verbo quam exemplo instituendo usque ad mortem perstititit, nobis sibi amplius per amorem astrinxit, ut tanto divinae gratiae accensi beneficio, nil iam tolerare propter ipsum vera reformidet caritas.... Redemptio itaque nostra est illa summa vn nobis per passionem Christi dilectio, quae nos non solum a servitute peccati liberat, sed veram nobis filiorum Dei libertatem acquirit, ut amore eius potius quam timore cuncta impleamus, qui nobis tantam exhibuit gratiam, qua maior inveniri, ipso attestante, non potest. Against the representative satisfaction he says: Quam crudele et iniquum videtur, ut sanguinem innocentis in pretium aliquod quis requisierit aut ullo modo ei placuerit innocentem interfici, nedum Deus tam acceptam Filii sui mortem habuerit, ut per ipsam universo reconciliatus sit mundo? [Google (By Schmid, Dogmengesch., 4th ed., p. 259, 258.)

of guilt as an illusion which it is the part of Christ to dispel."

the title of his main writing "Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation": "However, the order of the two terms is unusual. In the class of those who limit the vicarious satisfaction of Christ belong all those who deny the inner, infinite value of Christ's satisfaction by teaching that Christ's actions and sufferings were not in themselves (ex interna sua perfectione) a perfect ransom for the sins of man, but were only accepted by God for them (per liberam Dei acceptationem, per gratuitam Dei acceptationem). So among the scholastics especially the Scotists. Anselm (+

Man ]" with all decisiveness that Christ, the God-man, by giving his life to the divine justice for the sin of mankind, which was a violation of the divine majesty and therefore included an infinite indebtedness, had given_complete satisfaction. °°) Duns Scotus (¢ 1308), on the other hand, taught that Christ's merit had only a finite value and, after the freedom of the divine omnipotence, was accepted by God for an infinite one.!°! Thus, not only the actual Scotists, but also theologians otherwise One expects to see them in the reverse order, reconciliation and justification, being stirred up, thinking of God's reconciliation through Christ and, accordingly, of the justification of sins through him.... The title Justification and Reconciliation is intended to indicate that the correct presentation of the matter is thought in the line that excludes the acceptance of God's conversion through Christ from anger to grace. (1,2.) Cf. the detailed presentation and evaluation of Ritschl's teaching by L. Fiirbringer in Lehre und Wehre 1894, p. 218 ff.; 1895, p. 97 ff.

peccata, si pro illis detur, (II, 14.) And immediately before: Ansehnus: Cogita etiam, quia peccata 'tantum sunt odibilia, quantum sunt mala; et vita ista tantum amabilis est, quantum est bona. Unde sequitur, quia vita ista plus est amabilis quam sint peccata odibilia. Boso: Non possum hoc non intelligere. Anselmus: Putasne tantum bonum tam amabile posse sufficere ad solvendum, quod debetur pro peccatis totius mundi? Boso: Imo plus potest in infinitum. The denial of the obedientia activa by Anselm will be discussed later in the treatment of the obedientia activa Christ.

fuit profecto illud finitum, quia causa eius finita fuit, videlicet voluntas naturae assumtae et summa gloria illi collata. Non enim Christus quatenus Deus meruit, sed in quantum homo, Proinde si exquiras, quantum valuerit Christi meritum secundum sufficien- Historical facts about the doctrine of the satisfactio vicaria. considered Thomistic, such as Durandus (+ 1333). Admittedly Thomas Aquinas himself (+ 1274) had already laid the foundation for this acceptance theorem, despite his "satisfactio superabundas", when he taught that God, because he was the Most High, could forgive sin even without satisfaction.

Arminians. '°!9)- Calvin too is thrown back on the acceptance theory through his false doctrine of predestination. For Calvin does not allow Christ's merit, as the merit of a human being, to be given sufficient value until Predestination.!°'4) — The Romanists limit tiam valuit procul dubio quantum fuit a Deo acceptatum. Siquidem divina acceptatio est potissima causa et ratio omnis meriti. [Google] (With Schmid, op. cit., 1st ed., p. 103.)

plenaria: Satisfactio Christi dicitur, qua pro nobis poenas omnes luit peccatis nostris debitas, easque perferendo et exhauriendo divinae iustitiae satisfecit. Verum illa sententia nullum habet in Scriptura fundamentum. Mors Christi vocatur sacrificium pro peccato; atqui sacrificia non sunt solutiones debitorum neque plenariae pro peccatis satisfactiones; sed illis peractis conceditur gratuita peccati remissio. [Google] (Theol. christ, III, 21, 6.) Christ's sacrifice suffices: primo, respectu voluntatis divinae, quae ad generis humani liberationem nihil ultra requisivit, sed in unica hac victima acquievit. [first, with respect to the divine will, which required nothing more for the liberation of the human race, but was satisfied in this one victim.] (22, 5.)

simpliciter et per se Christum opponere vellet iudicio Dei, non fore merito locum, quia non reperietur in homine (Calvin nestorianisiert hier gerade wie Scotus] dignitas, quae possit Deum promereri.... Quum ergo de Christi merito agitur, non statuitur in eo principium, sed conscendimus ad Dei ordinationem, quae prima causa est, quia mero beneplacito mediatorem statuit, qui nobis salutem acquireret.... Nam Christus nonnisi ex Dei beneplacito quidquam mereri potuit. Sed quia ad hoc destinatus erat, ut iram Dei sacrificio suo placaret suaque obedientia deleret transgressiones nostras, in summa, quando ex sola Dei gratia (quae hunc nobis constituit salutis modum) dependet meritum Christi, non minus apte quam illa humanis omnibus iustitiis opponitur. [Google] On the other hand, it must be said that God did not force Christ to save the world, but only gave him out of free mercy. But to conclude from this that Christ's merit is not of sufficient value in itself, but only acquires value through God's pleasure or decree, is speculation contrary to Scripture. When Scripture says that Christ's blood, as the blood of the Son of God, makes us clean from all sins (1 John 1:7; Acts 20:28, etc.), it attributes infinite value to the blood of Christ in itself. the vicarious satisfaction of Christ in many ways. They claim that the people themselves must pay the temporal punishment for the sins committed after baptism either in this life or in purgatory. They deny, therefore, that Christ's merit covers the entire guilt of man's sins. Furthermore, whatever they leave standing of Christ's merit is to benefit people only because of their own improvement and sanctification. By doing so, they actually make the whole merit of Christ useless for the sinner. Furthermore, the Roman Sacrifice of the Mass, in which the body and blood of Christ is supposedly offered to God as a bloodless sacrifice, is a denial of the perfect sacrifice of Christ once offered. The excuse that the Sacrifice of the Mass is a means of appropriating the full and valid Sacrifice of Christ is not valid, since the fruit of Christ's sacrifice is distributed through the Gospel and the Sacraments and is received by man through faith. Admittedly, the Romans speak of a "superabundant merit" of Christ (satisfactio superabundans). But they give this "superabundant merit" to the Pope, who distributes it to the people under the conditions set by him. The Papists also place the merits of Mary and the Saints alongside the merits of Christ, "so that the Saints may free us from the temporal punishments of sins, including the punishments of purgatory".!°!°) Thus the Pope's Church denies the satisfactio Christi vicaria in many ways. The papacy is and remains the great anti-Christian institution, through which vicarious satisfaction is dismissed and mocked under the outward Christian bauble of Christ.

and aptly: Solus [Christ] ita nos redemit, ut castigatio sit super ipsupi, et nos pacem habeamus, Isaiah 53:5. Ergo etiam redemit nos a poenis peccatorum nostrorum temporalibus. Nisi enim et hae essent per Christum solutae et sublatae, nondum pacem haberemus cum Deo. Quidquid enim iustifieatis hominibus immitation afflictionis, id non amplius est maledictio and tiy:wpia, sed castigatio et paterna doktptacia. [Google] It is well known, by the way, that in Roman practice the difference between temporal and eternal punishment often disappears altogether, and that the forgiveness of sins per se is founded on the merits and intercession of the saints. Historical facts about the doctrine of the satisfactio vicaria. In America, Hugo Grotius' theory has also found widespread application. According to Grotius (+ 1645), God punished the innocent Christ in the place of guilty people, not in order to do enough for His holiness, but to set an_example of punishment on Christ, thus maintaining the authority of the law before men and deterring people from sin. '°! This theory is known here under the name "Governmental Theory" and has been accepted by the "New England Theology" by name. '°!) While in this theory a faint semblance of Christ's satisfaction is still maintained—Grotius himself retains the term satisfaction—others again proceeded to deny any satisfaction of divine justice and to place the nature of reconciliation merely in the moral influence that Christ's teaching and example exerts on people (moral-power view of atonement, moral-influence theory).!°!®)

exemplum grave adversus culpas immensas nostrum omnium, quibus Christus erat coniunctissimus natura, regno, vadimonio. (De satisfactione IV, § 18.) Before: Poenas infligere et a poenis aliquem liberare... non est nisi rectoris qua talis promo et per se: ut, puta, in familia partris; in republica regis, in universo Dei. (Il, 1.)

and others. Hugo Grotius' "RegentenmaBregel" [Regent's Rule] is essentially also found with the German supranaturalists Staeudlin, Flatt, Reinhard etc. Also Storr does not get beyond that. He calls the "appeasing of God's wrath" through Christ's life and suffering a "false delusion"; "rather, by it" (by punishing the sin against Christ) "the very true and not only for people but also for the purest and most insightful spirits most charitable opinion of the holiness of the law — should be supported". (Lehrbuch d. christl. Dogmatik, ed. Flatt. 1803, § 91, note 9)

Bushnell says: "His [Christ's] work terminates, not in the release of penalties by due compensation, but in the transformation of character, and the rescue, in that manner, of guilty men from the retributive causations provoked by their sins. (In Hodge, Syst Theol., 1, 568.) Bushnell, however, confesses that his "moral view" of the atonement exerts no effect on men unless it is clothed in the "altar expressions," that is, presenting Christ as a sacrifice for our sin. Hodge therefore says of Bushnell, "Toward the end of his book, however, he virtually takes it all back." So Hodge says of Bushnell, "Toward the end of his book, however, he virtually takes it all back." In a later paper, Forgiveness and Law, Bushnell says God cannot forgive sin without Christ's teaching and example is defined more closely by the various people in various ways, e.g. also in this way: Christ, as the representative of mankind, has completely confessed and repented of man's sins '°! and thereby made God inclined to forgive mankind's sins if people follow Christ in confession and repentance.!°° It is unnecessary to further explain in detail the deviations from the Christian doctrine of reconciliation. Here too, as with the doctrine of Christ's person, only a dichotomy is appropriate. There are only two essentially different teachings of Christ's Person. If one teaches the unio personalis, that is, the connection of God and man to one T’, one teaches in a Christian way. The so many and varied doctrinal formations which deny the unio personalis all belong to one unbiblical and un-Christian class. 107). As soon as it becomes evident that the objective reconciliation of all people through Christ's substitutionary life, suffering and death is denied, the foundation of Christian teaching is abandoned. One may then form and name one's view of reconciliation as one wishes: it is always wholly or partly attributed to human activity what_Christ alone has accomplished. With the salvation by grace, for Christ's sake, through faith, with Christ's saving honor and with the certainty of grace and salvation, it is then over once and for all! making it cost Himself (by "making cost to Himself"). Therefore God lets it cost Himself the suffering of His Son. But not in the sense that his righteousness demands satisfaction, but in the way that a man can forgive his offender with all his heart only when he has sacrificed himself for him. A critic of Bushnell's time rightly said that he theologized as if "God was made in man's image".

S. 734.

Wehre 1883, p. 349 ff. (against Dr. Graves in the Baptist Quarterly Review).

More detailed description of modern reconciliation theories. More detailed description of modern reconciliation theories. If we look at the state of affairs in the present, it can unfortunately be rightly said,'° that even the "conservative theology of the present", including that which calls itself Lutheran, has not returned to the "old Protestant church doctrine" of vicarious satisfaction (satisfactio vicaria), that is, to the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures. '°9) None of the newer dogmatists", Kirn reports, "think of the transfer of punishment in the full sense, including the feeling of guilt to the person of the Redeemer.!° Either the hatred of the world or the verdict of the law" (as if the law were not an expression of the demanding and punishing justice of God) "or the evil imposed on mankind for the sake of sin".!°?5) Admittedly, one must admit on a positive and middle-party side: Numerous representatives of the" (modern) "New Testament science today admit a legal interpretation of the death of Jesus and a punitive representation with Paul.!°°° In particular, Holtzmann has proven that the apostle Paul quite obviously teaches the vicarious satisfaction ("a satisfactory performance of the Son of God", "a satisfaction given to divine justice"), and that the "modern positive theology", which denies this, is guilty of "violent reinterpretation and elimination" of the Pauline statements. '°?’ Holtzmann thereby also appealed to the scientific sense of honor of the modern positive theologians by reminding them: "The freedom of religious thought does not arise from the violent reinterpretation and elimination but only from the recognition and historical understanding of the fact. The vicarious satisfaction—says Holtzmann—is after all "the nerve of all Pauline atonement thoughts and forms the basis for "the justification of sinners", i.e. for the doctrine of justification. Holtzmann has also pointed out that scriptural statements such as Gal 3:13, Col 2:14-15; Rom 3:25-26; 2 Cor 5:21 have been more correctly

understood and interpreted by the older orthodoxy than by modern Positive Theology.!°®) But the modern "positive" theology has not let itself be dissuaded by it from its contradiction against the representative satisfaction. Rather, it sets its whole strength on the rejection of the satisfactio vicaria as an allegedly too "juridical" and too little "religious-moral" conception of Christ's reconciling work of reconciliation by continued reinterpretation of the Scriptural statements, by caricaturing the doctrine of the Scriptures and the church and by ample use of an unclear, partly learned, partly pious sounding phraseology. There is more to be said about this later. At the same time, this theology also declares itself willing to pay the necessary price for the rejection of vicarious satisfaction. The price is the abandonment of the Christian doctrine of justification. For the situation is necessarily so: If man has not been completely reconciled to God through Christ's vicarious satisfaction, there is also no Adyoc THs KaYaAAaY Ic [Word of Reconciliation] (2 Cor. 5:19) or Adyos THs yapitoc [Word of His grace’] (Acts 20:32), through whose faithful acceptance man is in turn (subjectively) reconciled to God, but man must complete and decisively conclude his reconciliation with God through his own "religious-moral" goodness, renewal and sanctification. Thus Kirn expressly summarizes the positive results of the fight against satisfactio vicaria: "We are pointed out to include the transformation of humanity in the concept of the work of reconciliation. 102°) That is: We are instructed to strip the Christian doctrine of its Christian character and to transform it into Roman Catholic-pagan virtue or work doctrine. This is true with regard to all theories of reconciliation which are opposed to the satisfactio vicaria in our time. This is clearly evident in the so-called "declaratory" theory,!™°

Christian doctrine of reconciliation, which he calls the Pauline. It is only necessary to refrain from some caricatures which he also undermines, because he does not consider the apostle Paul to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, in which Christ himself speaks (2 Cor. 13:3), but a representative of "later Judaism".

forgiveness of sins to be possible even without average performance and therefore leave only a prophetic office of Christ. More detailed description of modern reconciliation theories. according to which there should be no wrath of God at all against the sin of men, and God without all satisfaction declares his love to men through Christ. Representatives of this theory, like Ritschl and Adolf Harnack, put the essence of Christianity entirely in the human morality inspired by Christ. But the same non-Christian point of view is shared by other modern theories which seek to "supplement" and "deepen" the "orthodox" doctrine of vicarious satisfaction by making the "transformation of humanity", the implantation in Christ, human renewal and sanctification factors in the concept of Christ's reconciling work. Here, too, the justification or forgiveness of sins comes decisively from human sanctification and human action, and thus the heart of Christianity is torn out. Let us then look at some more modern surrogates for the satisfactio vicaria. Hofmann, and those who follow his way, let the substitution of the vicarious satisfaction of Christ be replaced by the establishment of a new holy humanity in the person of Christ. '°?!) With regard to this surrogate, it must be said that a new humanity was set in the person of Christ. For Christ was the only sinless man since the Fall. This new sinless humanity in the person of Christ was also a necessary condition for the reconciliation to be effected through Christ. We had to have such a High Priest, who would be "holy, innocent, immaculate, separated from sinners". Heb 7:26 But it was not by what Christ was in his person, but by what this unique person did and suffered for the good and in the place of humanity, that men were reconciled with God. The high priest did not only have to be "holy" etc., but he also had to offer himself to God as a sacrifice (9voia) for mankind (Eph. 6:2), through his own blood (616 tod idiov ai~patoc) he had to enter the holy place (Hebr. 9:12); through the death (t@ Savato) of his son we have been reconciled to God, we have been redeemed through the costly blood

562 ff; Baier-Walther II, 117; Kirn, RE.3 XX, 569 ff; H. Schmidt, RE.2 XVI, 393 ff; Dorner, Glaubenslehre 2 I, 586 ff; Thomasius and Th. Harnack, Das Bekenntnis der luth._K. von der Verséhnung (Erl., 1857). (at pat.) Christ as an innocent and immaculate lamb (1 Petr. 1:19), redeemed by his obedience under the law given to men (Gal. 4:4, 5). Hofmann puts to one side this doctrine of Scripture, according to which reconciliation has come about through Christ's substitutionary action and suffering, when he sets a new humanity in the person of Christ. Therefore, according to Hofmann, the forgiveness or justification of sins is not carried out through faith, inasmuch as faith takes the forgiveness of sins acquired by Christ and offered in the Gospel, but through faith, insofar as it brings about the incorporation or implantation into the new humanity. Dorner correctly says of Hofmann's theory: "So by sanctification, at least in principle, we have reconciliation."!°°?) Meyer remarks

about the effect of Hofmann's doctrine of reconciliation on the doctrine of justification: According to Hofmann, the direct content of the Gospel and thus also the direct object of faith is not the forgiveness of sins acquired by Christ, but a piece of history, namely this, that. Christ has held on to his community with God until the end and thereby set the beginning of a new, holy humanity in his person. The guilt of sin and the forgiveness of sins are here at first completely relegated to the background. Of course, this also changes the nature of the justifying and saving faith: it is not the acceptance of the forgiveness of sins brought to light by Christ, but this, that man allows himself to be told the restoration and perfection of humanity through "the archetypal world purpose" (Christ). Here the forgiveness of sins only comes to light at the basis of the transfer into the new community of life founded by Christ; it is not an immediate object of faith. According to Hofmann, sin is not both an approach against God and thus guilt before God, but rather a loss of self into the physical world and thus captivity under an evil. Thus, when it comes to redemption, Hofmann does not do both the lifting of the guilt and punishment sentence, but rather the overcoming of sin. Therefore, he does not need a Saviour who experiences God's wrath and punishment in the place of human beings and who exalts the divine judgment of guilt and punishment against human beings, but rather, in accordance with his teaching on sin, he constructs a Saviour who breaks the power of sin in his person by setting the beginning of a new, holy humanity through self-probation even under the extreme consequences of sin, and thereby redirecting the stream per humanity back into God. The kinship of Hofmann's theology with Menken's and Schleiermacher's theology cannot be denied: its essence consists in "the mystical substitution of subjective salvation More detailed description of modern reconciliation theories. against Hofmann's doctrine of reconciliation: 2 Cor. 5:18-21 "contains the exact opposite of Hofmann's assertion that atonement did not happen so much through Christ but rather in Christ, re-established that in his person a new relationship of men to God was restored". "No, the death of Jesus acted as tAaotrptov [atonement] (Rom. 3:25; Gal. 3:13), thus as God's holy enmity, erasing the opyj Seov [wrath of God], so that he now did not impute sin to men (v. 19) and thus, in this way, actu forensi, reconciled with himself (v. 21), whereby faith is only the subjective condition of appropriation on the part of man. The gratitude, the new courage, the holy life, etc." (also the unio mystica or implantation in the Body of Christ) "is only consequens of the reconciliation acquired in faith, not part of it. And Kliefoth wrote against Hofmann: "Just as that poor naturalist who searched heaven and earth but could not find God, so von Hofmann searches the whole of the Holy Scriptures, but the understanding of the simple word of faith: "given and shed for the forgiveness of my sins," he can't find in it. Hofmann's theory touches "the core and star not only of our church doctrine, but of Christianity in general.!%%) The same is true of the theory that has been called the "guarantee theory" or "Biirgschafts" and which is presented, for example, by Nitzsch- Stephan!™) in the words: "Indirectly, however, the reconciliation itself is based on the success in winning disciples, and thus instead of objective reconciliation". Hase remarks against the modern deviations from the Church's doctrine of reconciliation: "The deepest sense of sinfulness alongside the highest trust in the infinite mercy of God is expressed in the Church doctrine. The more recent objections are mostly based on the superficial concept of sin; he who has easily argued against the reconciler who did not consider the greatness of his guilt.... But he who is aware of the impossibility of redeeming himself from evil by his own power will gratefully grasp the merit of the divine reconciler". (Hutterus red. 6, p. 251.)

118. Likewise, everything Schleiermacher says about reconciliation comes down to this, Der christl. Glaub.. Il, § 125. Hofmann's teaching has the same meaning. We have it with the deniers of the satisfactio vicaria, basically always dealing with the same thing. Only the expressions change. the defeat of the dominion of sin; it is by guaranteeing to the Father that He will win such disciples and unite them with God in the divinely ruled Church to be founded by Him that Christ provides the requisite expiation. Reconciliation has been effected by this promise and guaranty before the actual ethico-religious transformation takes place. This theory also offers the exact opposite of scripture. Admittedly, in the work of Christ we have a "surety", and that is the only surety or "assurance of the Godly life". The "orthodox" theologians put it this way: Lex praescribit, evangelium inscribit [The law prescribes, the gospel prescribes]. Although the law demands "godly life", sanctification, keeping the commandments of God, it does not achieve this; only the Gospel of the forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake does this. In order to write His law in the hearts of men, God has taken away the covenant of the law and put in its place the covenant of the forgiveness of sins, as already Jer. 31:31 ff. And Paul teaches: "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace" and: "But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life", Rom. 6:14, 22. Only those who belong to Christ crucify their flesh together with their lusts and desires, Gal. 5:24; only they are zealots in good works, Tit. 2:15. But this effect of Christ's redemptive work on men, this "godly life", has nothing at all to do with the reconciliation of the world. The reconciliation of the world has come about neither wholly nor partly by a "guaranty" on the part of "the Redeemer", but wholly and completely by the fact that the Redeemer himself has made the divine demand and has fully and completely, "arithmetically and legally" calculated, paid the debt and in his resurrection from the dead received a receipt from God, namely a receipt issued in the name of mankind: Christ was indeed raised, as he was given into death for our sin, so also for our justification (gic ducaimow nuov), Rom. 4:25. The Gospel, by the action of the Holy Spirit (John 16:14), calls forth faith on the part of men (j niatic s& akor¢, Rom. 10:17), and hence it now comes to pass that a man sola fide More detailed description of modern reconciliation theories. with the exclusion of works (ypic épy@v vopov), apart from "the transformation of humanity", is justified before God. Faith is now counted for righteousness by God, not in so far as it vouches for or guarantees a "godly life"—which of course he does, and that alone—but in so far as it believes the paid and receipted bill, namely believes that God justifies him (the "salvation mediator") fyye1pev ek vexpov, Rom. 10:9 and, looking at the nature of man, not the "transformed one" but "the godless one (tov ace)" (Rom. 4:5). The "surety" or "guarantee theory", which lets the reconciliation of people be essentially on the Savior’s winning of disciples and thus conquering the dominion of sin,", that is, on sanctification and works, is in direct contradiction to Christian doctrine. Correctly Meyer says on Rom. 3:24: "The liberation from the principle of sin [from its dominion] is not the essence of anoAvtpwotsc itself, but its consequence through the Spirit, if it is appropriated in faith. Any view which does not attribute redemption and the forgiveness of sins to the real atonement through the death of Christ, but subjectivizing it to the co-dying and resurrection guaranteed and brought about by this death (Schleiermacher, Nitzsch, Hofmann), is against the New Testament, a mixture of justification and sanctification. Because Professor Ihmels (Leipzig) is widely regarded as the most conservative representative of modern Lutheranism, it seems appropriate to say a few words in particular about Ihmels' position. Nitzsch-Stephan's verdict on Ihmels is that he "has not yet offered a more precise execution of his thoughts". But if, as it seems, the immediately following words are also supposed to refer to Ihmels: "With such a general and experiential attitude, the difference from Ritschl's theology is only slightly apparent", then it is objectively necessary to limit this judgement. While it is essential for Ritschl's position to grasp the wrath of God and accordingly also the human consciousness of guilt as erroneous human imagination, Ihmels says that man's consciousness of guilt is no imagination but corresponds to him "an objective reality in God".!°) On the basis of what Ihmels said in

Or does an objective reality in God correspond to it? Would his "central questions" about the work of Christ,!° we would like to judge that here too, as with the doctrine of the person of Christ,!° we would like to see Him make serious attempts to return to the doctrine of Scripture and the Church. But here and there it is impossible for him to achieve the desired goal, because in his theology he has abandoned the principle of Scripture. Because he does not consider Scripture to be God's Word per se '°°*) and therefore does not stand on the Word of Scripture, but in the difference between the Word and the "impression of reality" and the "experience",! he slides, in all his striving for the doctrine of Scripture, again and again into the sea of subjectivism, especially into the waters of Schleiermacher, Hofmann and Ritschl. Ihmel's' position is, as in the doctrine of Christ's person, so in the doctrine of Christ's work, too, a fluctuating and therefore necessarily contradictory one. On the one hand, there is almost the whole catalogue of speeches that only make sense if, like Ritschl and the old rationalists, one denies God's demanding and judging justice, God's wrath and a reconciliation through Christ's work. Here belong his addresses against the "juridical" view and all "legal categories" in the work of Christ, the rejection of the "material understanding of the death of Jesus", especially the rejection of the thought "as if Christ had suffered what lost humanity would otherwise have had to suffer without him". And "to speak of a transformation of God in the work of Christ", he declares, is "not merely clumsy but misleading". On the other hand, however, he speaks in such a way that the rejected concepts, juridical views, etc., are set again. He says of man that in his conscience he experiences God's judgement over his sin, and that the human sense of guilt is not just an illusion, but an objective God call back the sinner who wants to flee from Him and assure him that the flight from His holiness is nothing but imagination, that He is not angry with man at all? Speaking without image: Must the holy God exclude sin, and thus the sinner, from himself? The answer of conscience is not doubtful; in all things, it can only agree with the witness of Scripture.

More detailed description of modern reconciliation theories. English edition ~ 366-367] reality in God (that is, God's demanding and punishing justice). And of Christ he says that Christ in his person had stood under God's judgment over the sin of mankind, yes, that in Christ's death "it came to the proof of the judicial" (i.e. "juridical") "justice of God, whom the sin of mankind demanded" (p. 125). Thus He restores the rejected "juridical" conception and the "legal categories". And what concerns the so energetically rejected "God's reorganization in the work of Christ" (p. 122), he restitutes it again in occasional remarks. For he explains that in Corinthians ("God reconciled the world with himself") there is no talk of a change in the attitude of the world, but of God. "Basically regarded, Paul links reconciliation to the historical work of Christ in the sense of a change in God's relationship and attitude towards the world. He is talking here only about a change in God's relationship or position. But he further points out correctly that a change in the position of God towards mankind cannot be separated from a change in the attitude of God. He says: "Certainly, there in that passage of Corinthians, at first there is only talk of a new relationship between God and man; '™ but if this new relationship involves a change in the position of God in relation to humanity, is it then possible to make a distinction between the position and attitude of God? Would this not necessarily somehow amount to assuming an untruthfulness in God? And if the relationship to humanity, determined by the wrath of God, reaches its end there, does that not necessarily imply a change of attitude? And in a positive way he says: "Thus it is the eternal love of God which, in the historical work of Christ, transforms the "relationship" (including the attitude of God) "to humanity determined by the holy wrath" into a "relationship" (including the attitude) "of reconciliation.

denote a relationship but an action, and the immediately following pn AoytCopEevoc avdtoic TA TAPATTHLATA odtaV also denotes an action: God did not ascribe their sin to men, that is to say, he justified men, forgave them their sins If one holds this claimed "change of God's mind" towards mankind in the work of Christ against the rejected "change of God's mind in the work of Christ", it is evident that it is highly possible for Ihmels to say yes and no in the same respect of the same thing.!°") Psychologically however this yes and no position can be explained

ume, [Ed. - see this blog post] Ihmels says: "The expression would necessarily give the impression that reconciliation was forced upon God; and even more embarrassing is almost the impression that the word must create, as if God was exposed to a change of moods. Ihmels' first reason is based on an incorrect presentation of the doctrine of Scripture and the Church. In the doctrine of the Scriptures and the Church one cannot really think that reconciliation was "forced upon" God, because according to the doctrine of the Scriptures and the Church God was not determined from outside but by his own love to let his anger go against téxva opyijs by way of vicarious satisfaction. So Joh. 3:16; Rom. 5:8; 1 Joh. 4:9-10. Concerning the apvdc tov dsov, Joh. 1:29, Luther remarks: God's Lamb is "the sacrifice that God Himself ordered for the sin of the world". His second reason is a direct criticism of the speech of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. Scripture does indeed testify to the "eternal immutability" of God (Ps 102:25-28), and it must certainly be recorded. But because we human beings, because of the finite nature of our comprehension, cannot encompass the "eternal immutability" of God, but rather all our thoughts necessarily move in time and space, Scripture itself leads us to think things before and after one another in the unchanging God. The wrath of God against humanity, we must think on the basis of Scripture not before but after the sin of humanity, and the forgiveness of sins must follow the reconciliation through Christ in distant thoughts (in puncto rationis). Scripture consistently speaks of a beginning and an end to both the wrath and the grace of God. This is done in divine condescension to our human capacity. And if we human beings do not want to get involved in these ideas offered by God himself, invoking God's "eternal immutability", we evade the revelation of God in Scripture, which is calculated on our comprehension power, and go astray. On the basis of Scripture, the ancient theologians worked through the "problem" of God's eternity and immutability on the one hand and "God's entering into history" on the other hand very carefully. They summarize the result in this way: In Deo non dantur causae formaliter causantes (that is God in His unchanging, unfathomable majesty); dantur camouflage dantur tamen causae virtualiter sive in puncto rationis (conceptually) causantes (that is God as He presents Himself in Scripture for human understanding). See Baier, Compendium I, 33; Joh. P. Reusch, Annotationes, p. 175 sqq. Thus, on the one hand, we must hold on the basis of Scripture that the decree of world reconciliation through Christ belongs to unchanging eternity; on the other hand, Scripture directs us to think of a change of God's mind, or a transformation of His wrath More detailed description of modern reconciliation theories. by a dual objective. On the one hand Ihmels wants to remain in harmony with the modern theology inaugurated by Schleiermacher, which wants to be based on the impression of reality and experience instead of on the word of the Scriptures; but on the other hand he also feels the need to strive fora harmony with the statements of the Scriptures and to "classify" the experience of historical "impressions" into the written testimony. The result is that neither of the two principles is quite valid. The wrong principle has triumphed with him at the point where it is a matter of applying the reconciling work of Christ to faith and the justification of man. Here the truth of Scripture is completely set aside. According to the Scriptures, faith in Christ is, as is well known, born and exists only through the word of Christ. God has put the fact that in Christ he reconciled man with Himself and did not ascribe their sins to them, that is to say that he justified mankind, into the AOyos THs KaTAaAAYNe, into the word of the reconciliation that has been directed. This Word now resounds in the world at God's command, so that men may believe it and through faith in turn be reconciled to God. This faith comes about through nothing other than the Word itself, as Paul testifies Rom. 10:17: 4 miotic e& ako, and Christ says Joh. 17:20 that all believers will believe in Him through her, the apostle, Word (514 tov Adyov avtav). However, the emergence of faith in Christ through the Word of Christ alone fights against Him. He says: "The faith of the first disciples did not come into being in this way. Rather, it grew out of the impression of reality under which into grace, to think of it in terms of grace, brought about by Christ's actions and sufferings in the fullness of time 4900 [2000] years ago. The Scriptures, in condescension to our human powers of comprehension, present the matter thus: In those days when the just suffered and died for the unjust, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son. At that time, when Christ was put under the law of God given to men, and fulfilled it in the place of men, he came to justify life through the one justice for all men. At that time, when God reconciled the world with Himself through Christ, He (God) did not attribute sin to man’s world, that is, He allowed grace toward the human world to take the place of wrath in Him, "before His forum". The one who, like him, calls these thoughts "misleading" with reference to the immutability of God, and even feels "embarrassed" by such thoughts, thus renounces scriptural thoughts of the redemption that has happened in the fullness of time through Christ. the disciples stood daily. Even today, only the real faith in Christ, which is imposed on man through his" (Christ's) "appearance, is real. It cannot be said seriously enough that if Jesus is really the one the Church confesses him to be, he himself must also be able, through his reality, to convert from that reality. These are strange words. There is no question whether Christ would be able to convince us of his "reality", yes, even of God's reconciliation, through his appearance or through strong historical impressions (the latter are probably meant here by Christ's "appearance"). Luther, when he comes to this point, tends to say: Who wanted to set God's ability a goal? Christ could probably make all people believe at twelve o'clock at night and in a moment through historical, physical and other "impressions" in themselves. But it is not a question of what Christ is "able" to do, but what he wants to do, and what way of making people believe in himself he has chosen. And there he says that all will believe in him through the apostles’ word, and that those who remain by his word (év tT Ady TP EU~) will know the truth. No one else has ever "experienced" reconciliation with God, nor will anyone else experience it until the Last Day, except through faith in the Word of reconciliation that has taken place. Everything that is said about an immediate "experience" of Christ before and outside the Word of Christ is rapture. It is the enthusiasm of which the Smalcald Articles rightly say: est omnium haeresium et papatus et Mahometismi origo, vis, vita et potentia. Quare in hoc nobis est constanter perseverandum, quod Deus non velit nobiscum aliter agere, nisi per vocale verbum et sacramenta, et quidquid sine verbo et sacramentis iactatur ut spiritus, sit ipse diabolus. (IH, 8 [Trigl. 497 f., 9; Part. III, Art. VII, 9) In so far as someone like him struggles for the emergence of faith in Christ without the word of Christ, he has forgotten not only partially but completely what Scripture teaches about reconciliation through Christ, the message of reconciliation, the Gospel, faith and justification. With a faith based on "impressions" experienced rather than on the word of the Gospel alone, justification and sanctification are in principle mixed. But even with this sad state of affairs in recent theology, we would again like to remind you of the fact that not More detailed description of modern reconciliation theories. all who publicly teach unchristianly in their writings, also believe unchristianly for their person and in their heart. For it is the case that all the old and new theories of reconciliation, by which the reconciliation of the whole world of sinners, which has come about through the vicarious satisfaction of Christ, is understood "juridically", are practically completely useless. They all have the characteristic that they cannot put to rest a conscience that has been affected by the law of God. Only "the blood and righteousness of Christ", that is, Christ’s satisfactio vicaria, does this. When Ritschl teaches and preaches for fifty years that God is merciful to men without Christ's vicarious satisfaction, he does not bring any man to faith, because the Holy Spirit does not bother to convince people of untruths, but only transfigures Christ, that is, Christ the crucified one, Christ in his vicarious satisfaction, Christ in the hearts of men (éketvoc—to avevdLe TS GAnisiauc—éue d0€éoe1, Joh. 16:13-14). In the same way, the Holy Spirit is equally unruly with regard to the more "positive" theories which seek to "complete" and "deepen" the "orthodox" doctrine of vicarious satisfaction in such a way that even "the transformation of humanity" (human renewal, sanctification, ingrafting in the person of Christ, in the Body of Christ, in the Church, etc.) is excluded from the "accomplished work of salvation" of Christ and considered "co-founding for its value before God.!). Nor do all these theories put consciences to rest, because they base consciences not only on Christ's work, but decisively on man's own actions and man's "religious-moral" nature. Also the theological teacher who carries in his heart the faith worked by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel, or who comes to this faith before his end, leaves therefore his "completion" and "deepening" of the "orthodox" doctrine of reconciliation at the study table and bases himself in his heart and before God on the satisfactio vicaria alone. Ihmels can serve as an example here. After he has struggled honestly and—as he probably notices—in vain with the "religious-moral" improvement of the vicarious satisfaction, he concludes with the assurance that he only wanted to secure what is expressed in the old passion song:

All sins Thou borest for us, else had despair reigned o’er us. [The Lutheran Hymnal, #146] In these words of the Passion Song, however, no more and no less is expressed than the "juridical" satisfactio vicaria, as theoretically rejected by Him. — The sense of guilt in the human heart is a terrible reality. It is an indictment written in the heart, behind which stands the full force of divine justice and holiness: You shall be holy, for I am holy; accursed is every man that abideth not in all that is written in the book of the law, that he should do so.!) The writing of guilt cannot be erased by any human thought operation or effort. If the Rocky Mountains and the Himalayas have their existence through the divine omnipotence, then the consciousness of guilt has its existence in the human heart through the force of divine justice in its demanding and condemning activities. The consciousness of guilt only gives way when the Word of the handwriting (xelpoypagov) that was nailed to the cross by Christ comes to man, and the Holy Spirit works faith in this Word and thus replaces the divine judgment of condemnation in the human heart with the divine judgment of pardon. To declare condemnation in conscience to be imaginary or to want to eliminate it by calling for the transformation of humanity, the implantation in Christ, renewal and sanctification, is theological childishness, self and world deception. Regarding the practical uselessness of all theories of reconciliation that somehow contrast with the scriptural doctrine of satisfactio vicaria, Strong historically refers (Syst. Theol., p. 739 sq.): "It is interesting to note that some of the greatest advocates of the Moral Influence theory have reverted to the older faith when they came to die. In his dying moments, as L. W. Munhall tells us, > Schleiermacher,

antinomians, Sz. L. XX, 1628 ff. More detailed description of modern reconciliation theories..." Grotius also died not on his governmental theory, i.e. not on Christ as an example of punishment and a deterrent,!*) but on Christ as his reconciler with God. He died under the pastoral care of the Lutheran theologian Johann Quistorp. °°)

Our Lord on Luke 18:9-14, has an interesting account of this: "Grotius, returning in 1645 from Sweden to Holland, where he proposed to pass the evening of his days, was wrecked on the coast of Pomerania. He made his way with difficulty to Rostock, where mortal illness, brought on by the hardships and dangers he had undergone, acting on a body already infirm, overtook him. Being made aware of his danger, he summoned Quistorp, a high Lutheran theologian, not unknown in the history of the Lutheran Church, to his side. I will leave to this latter to tell the remainder of the story in his own words: I drew nigh, and found the sick man almost in his last agony. I spoke to him, and told him that nothing would have pleased me more than to have met him in health and "held conversation with him. To this he replied, God has willed it thus. I then proceeded to admonish him to prepare himself for his blessed journey, to acknowledge himself a sinner, and to grieve for his misdeeds, and as in my talk I touched upon the publican who confessed himself a sinner, and prayed that God would have mercy upon him, he made answer, J am that publican. 1 then went on, and committed him unto Christ, besides whom there is no salvation, and he rejoined, All my hope is placed in Christ alone. With a clear voice I then recited in German that German prayer which begins: Herr Jesu Christ, wahrer Mensch, etc.; and folding his hands, he followed me under his breath. When I had ended, I asked if he had understood me. He replied, I understood well. I then went on to recite from the Word of God such things as are wont to be recalled to But the fact that the Holy Spirit, in his great fidelity, is able to save teachers from the error in their hearts, which they speak with their mouths and in their writings, must not prevent the Christian Church from fighting such teachers with all seriousness. They are and remain dangerous enemies of the Christian Church. And this from a whole series of points of view: 1. they, as has been amply demonstrated, through the surrogates which they seek to substitute for vicarious satisfaction, in one way or another base reconciliation with God on human action, thus rendering the Christian faith, in so far as their teaching is taken into consideration, impossible. Kliefoth did not say too much when he argued that Hofmann's erroneous doctrine of reconciliation was about Christianity in general. Without the perfect reconciliation of the human world with God, as directed by Christ’s satisfactio vicaria, there is no gospel, no faith, no justification, no renewal and sanctification, no church, no New Testament ministry, no eternal life. 2. they spend their surrogates as scriptural teaching. They would not be so dangerous if, like Adolf Harnack for example, they openly confessed their opposition to the Holy Scriptures.!°4° But most of the more or less "positive" theologians claim the memories of those on the point of death, and asked if he understood me. He replied, I hear your voice, but find it hard to understand the words. When he had said this, he fell into complete silence, and a little while afterwards gave up the " (but in such a way that Grotius (Walch, Bibl. theol. Il, 220. 353 sq.), an Arminian and hitherto strongly drifting in indifferentist Roman fairway, abandons his standpoint and takes the biblical standpoint of the Lutheran Quistorp, as Trench also reports in the following). "In Christ, and in His free grace as the one hope of sinners, they are at one. To this, and to this only, the one [Quistorp] points; in this, and in this only, the other [Grotius] rests. Quistorp’s letter (which is not addressed to Calov, as I stated in some former editions, relying on second-hand information which betrayed me here into more than one inaccuracy, but to Elias Taddel, Professor of Theology at Rostock) is reprinted in Krabbe’s Aus dem kirchl. und wissenschaftl. Leben Rostocks, 1863, p. 383."

careless manner. (Wesen des Christentums, p. 114 f.) More detailed description of modern reconciliation theories. to present scriptural doctrine. 3. They obscure the reinterpretation and interpretation of biblical truths with the appearance of deeper theological scholarship. In this way they generally give a "deepened concept of atonement" to the interference of human renewal in Christ's work of reconciliation, i.e. the complete abolition of the biblical concept of atonement (avt6c—namely Christ—sortt IAaopoc mEepi TOV ALAPTLOV HELV). But the appearance of higher theological erudition is very suitable to make a seductive impression on the studying youth. 4. They educate to engage in logical ambiguity, for example by instructing the student youth to reject on the one hand any "juridical" conception of Christ's reconciling work, but on the other hand to understand Christ's death as a proof of God's "judicial justice". That is a seduction of the studying youth to a disordered economy of thought which can only with difficulty be removed again, as experience teaches abundantly. 5. They educate to an inner untruthfulness by instructing the student youth to reinterpret the words of the Scriptures! and to distort the doctrinal position of the "orthodox" theologians and thereby to awaken an odium [hatred] against them.!* Kliefoth said of Hofmann in his time what is almost true with regard to all modern deniers of the satisfactio vicaria: "If von Hofmann said straight out where he deviated from the doctrine of the Church, and how he deviated, the Church, which today has to bear a great deal,

theologians. Also Grimm says of Hofmann: Inter eos, qui pro Gnesiolutheranis haberi volunt, I. Chr. K. Hofmannus (in libro The Scriptural Proof), Jesum patiendo moriendoque vicarias poenas dedisse negans earumque notionem e sacris libris exegetica arte exterminare tentans, maxime ethicam eorum, quae Christus passus est, vim et potestatem praedicavit. [Google] (Institutio theol. dogmaticae 2, p. 382.)

teachings of the inspiration and person of Christ. Thus Nitzsch-Stephan (p. 597 f.) says: "It was a mistake of the Orthodox doctrine that the basic order of the relationship between God and man was thought in categories that were taken from the legal sphere of the state. Of course, the "Orthodox" have never thought of such a procedure, but, as Holtzmann reminds us, they got their doctrine from the apostle Paul. But the assertion that the Orthodox had thought of the matter in "categories", "which were taken from the legal sphere of the state", must be taken by the student youth against the "Orthodox", although it (the assertion) is a historical untruth. would also be able to bear his system. But he does not do that; he does not even stop at teaching differently without making his deviation noticeable, but he claims to be in conformity with the church's teaching, yes, to further educate and promote it through his theology.... The active obedience of Christ (obedientia Christi activa). ’ To the vicarious satisfaction of Christ also belongs, as already taught in the previous passage, Christ's keeping of the divine law given to man in place of man (/oco hominum). In other words, in order to do justice to God, Christ not only bore the punishment for human transgression of the law, but also, with his holy life, rendered obedience to the divine law, which men are obliged to do, but do not do. Like our human debt, our human duty to God has been attributed to Christ (yevouevoc baép NUOV KaTapa— yEvopLEvoV 010 VOLOV iva Tods DIO VOLOV EEayopaon, Gal. 3:13; 4:4-5) — We will follow this up with a special discussion of this piece of vicarious satisfaction, because in the presentation of the doctrine of salvation the same thing has been partly resigned, partly downright denied. So a. also by Anselm, when he says Cur Deus Homo II, 11, that Christ's obedience to life does not belong to the satisfaction given to men, because Christ, like every rational creature, was himself guilty of this obedience;!©

faith went beyond his scholastic theory and in his reflections and prayers says, for example, "While I did not want to obey, with your obedience you atoned for my disobedience; I revelled, you thirsted" etc., thus explicitly counting the active obedience of Christ as the vicarious satisfaction. Anselm's wrong representation in Cur Deus Homo reads: Anselmus: Quaerendum est nunc, cuiusmodi haec datio debebit esse. Dare namque se non poterit Deo aut aliquid de se quasi non habenti, ut suus sit, quoniam omnis creatura Dei est. Boso: Sic est. Anselmus: Sic ergo intelligenda est haec datio, quia aliquo modo b. by Georg Karg, Superintendent General in Ansbach (+ 1576), who, however, recanted in 1570;!°" c. by a part of the Reformed theologians, namely by Joh. Piscator (+ 1625); d. by ponet se ad honorem Dei aut aliquid de se, quo modo debitor non erit. Boso: Ita sequitur ex supra dictis. Anselmus: Si dicimus, quia dabit seipsum ad obediendum Deo, ut perseveranter servando iustitiam subdat se eius voluntati, non erit hoc dare, quod Deus ab illo non exigat ex debito. Omnis enim rationalis creatura (lebet hanc obedientiam Deo. Boso: Hoc negari nequit. Anselmus: Alio itaque modo oportet ut det seipsum Deo aut aliquid de se. Boso: Ad hoc nos impellit ratio. Anselmus: Videamus, si forte hoc sit vitam suam dare sive ponere animam suam sive tradere seipsum morti ad honorem Dei. Hoc enim ex debito Deus non exiget ab illo; quoniam namque non erit peccatum in illo, non debebit mori, ut diximus. [Google] Thus Anselm clearly excludes the active obedience of Christ from the vicarious satisfaction. The greatest mistake in Anselm's writing (Cur Deus Homo), incidentally, is that it does not simply present the doctrine of reconciliation from the Scriptures, but seeks to develop it rationally. This is also connected with the ponderous train of thought that is so unpleasantly apparent in this writing. The so simple and clear teaching of the Holy Scriptures is stretched out on the rack of theological speculation. Anselm's method is not to be held up to the students of theology as a model, but rather as a deterrent example. Nor should one overestimate the importance of Anselm's writing for the following period. The common claim that the basic ideas of Anselm's theory were excluded from the Reformation is misleading. Luther read Anselm. He calls him "monachissimus monachus [the most monastic monk’]" (Exeg. opp. lat., ed. XXI, 233). But one must not assume a special influence of Anselm from Luther. What is correct in Anselm's Cur Deus Homo was closer and better in the Holy Scriptures.

law binds to either obedience or punishment, not both at the same time. The extent to which this sentence was misunderstood will soon be explained, but Karg concluded from this sentence: "Because Christ suffered the punishment for us, he rendered obedience for himself. The all-round contradiction that immediately arose against this teaching of Karg's proves how clearly the truth had been recognized within the Lutheran Church that the obedientia activa was part of the satisfaction provided by Christ. Karg was suspended. He traveled to Wittenberg, where he was convicted of his error, persuaded to recant and was reinstated in his office. Because a revocation is something rare among high-ranking persons in the Church, more recent theologians, who want to limit Christ's active obedience to the fact that Christ willingly gave himself up to his "saving vocation", also willingly suffered what the "saving vocation" brought with it in the midst of a sinful humanity, but deny that Christ fulfilled the law given to men in the place of man.!) "Vocational obedience" as opposed to the obedience which Christ gives to the law given to men and in place of men has become mpatov wevos [first of all] of modern theology. The Formula of Concord (pp. 612 f. [Zrigl. 919, Sol. Decl., I, 15]) speaks clearly and sharply about the obedientia Christi activa as an integral part of Christ's satisfactorial performance, when it says: Since Christ is not man alone, but God and man in one undivided person, He was as little subject to the Law (that is, obliged to keep the law, legi subiectus), because He is the Lord of the Law, as He had to suffer and die as far as His person is concerned. For this reason, then, His obedience, not only in suffering and dying, but also in this, that He in our stead was voluntarily made under the Law, and fulfilled it by this obedience, is imputed to us for righteousness, so that, on account of this complete obedience, which He rendered His heavenly Father for us, by doing and suffering, in living and dying, God forgives our sins, regards us as godly and righteous, and eternally saves us. Here the limitation of obedientia Christi activa to "the spontaneous assumption of suffering is expressly rejected.

Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 557 ff. The teaching of the Formula of Concord is the clear teaching of Scripture. In Gal. 4:4-5, a twofold thing is clearly evident: 1. that here the divine law given to man is spoken of; not is "law" to be understood here as God's "will of salvation", which only Christians are concerned with; 2. that Christ was put under this law given to men and fulfilled it for the redemption of men.

fulfilment of the law of God with the fulfilment of God's "will of salvation", this implies a blatant petitio principii [begging the question’. First of all, it is necessary to determine on the basis of the Scriptures what the "will of salvation", which Christ was to carry out, means. According to the Scriptures, this will of salvation is not only obedience to suffering, but also substitutionary obedience to life, positive fulfillment of the law in place of man. — On the basis of the Scriptures the following is therefore to be noted with regard to Christ’s holy life: Christ's holy life is not only a model for us—which it certainly is, in so far as we are to walk in Christ's footsteps, 1 Pet. 2:21—- nor is it merely a prerequisite for suffering obedience—which it admittedly is, insofar as only the death of a

subject to the demanding statutes of the nomos [Law]; accordingly, the work of redemption of the Son of God is to be regarded as the vicarious fulfillment of the law. (IV, 2, 300) Likewise Stéckhardt: "The law under which Israel was subject is the sum of all God's demands on man, especially on Israel, everything that God wants man to have done and left. And it is to this very law that Christ is also subject, and he has accepted it, that is to say, he has fulfilled all the commandments of God. And this very obedience served for our salvation." (L. u. W. 1896, p. 137.) We also hold with most of the old theologians Matt. 5:17 as a proof of the obedientia Christi activa. The TOV VOLLOV TANPaoal, "to fulfill the law", to limit it to the fulfillment "with teachings", the expression does not suffer. — It is also arbitrary to restrict the ducaimpa of Christ out of the mere obedience of Christ to suffering. The napdatopa, the transgression, of Adam is here confronted by the dtkai@pa, the act of righteousness of Christ, that through which Christ—in the difference from Adam— presented himself as just, the obedience of Christ (the vaakon, v. 19) without restriction. Clear and sharp Quenstedt says: Atkai@pa opponitur xapaatmpat. Ut ergo Napantoua est avouia, ita dikaimpa vi oppositionis est evvopia.. actio EVVOLOG seu activa Christi obedientia. [Google] It is therefore not said enough when Philippi ad h. 1. says that here only "the basis" for the dogma of obedientia activa is given. perfect saint has atoning power, Petr. 1:19—but it is also an integrating part of the payment that Christ vicariously offered to the just God for the reconciliation of men. This is the teaching of Scripture in the scriptural passages cited, and to recognize and record this is also of the greatest importance in practice, namely for the Christian life of faith, as is evident from the following statement by Luther. After Luther said of Christ's vicarious fulfillment of the law: "He has done enough for the law, he has fulfilled the law completely; for he has loved God with all his heart, with all his soul, with all his strength, with all his mind, and his neighbor as himself" etc, he continues: "Therefore, when the law comes and accuses you of not keeping it, point to Christ and say, "There is the man who did it; I hold fast to him who fulfilled it for me and gave me his fulfillment; so it must remain silent. (E. A. 13, 61. 63.) We have also already pointed out above how Anselm practiced his life of faith beyond his theoretical denial of the obedientia Christi activa. It remains to consider the objections with which the active obedience of Christ as part of His vicarious satisfaction has been contested. It has been objected: