8. Saving Faith Trusts the Grace Offered in the Gospel.
Because the justifying faith has the gospel as its object, it is at the same time said that it is always faith in the forgiveness of sins pronounced in the word of promise. We are dealing with a very crude reproduction of the enthusiasm of Zwingli, Schwenkfeld, Weigel, the Quakers, etc., when modern "positive" theologians like Ihmels claim!*) that the faith of the first disciples did not arise from Christ's testimony of himself or not from the word of Christ, but rather "from the impression of reality under which the disciples stood daily". In a generalizing way, he adds: "Even today, only this is real faith in Jesus Christ, which is forced upon people by His appearance.". The exact opposite is true. According to Scripture, the faith that is connected with Christ is always faith through the word of Christ!* and in the word of Christ or in the Gospel.!*® Also the first disciples' faith in Christ was faith through the word and in the word, as Scripture still explicitly testified. 14 There is no faith in the Person of Christ without faith in the divine word of that Person, and there is no faith in the work of Christ or in the "Christian facts of salvation" without faith in the divine word of these facts of salvation.
the air", as Luther often puts it. Even the exalted Christ does not want to act with man through "apparitions" and "impressions of reality", but only through his word, as far as faith and salvation are considered. '!*4) Christ's "apparitions" and his "impressions" without a word do not occur until the Last Day.!*°° Until then, the following applies: If any man... consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ... he is proud, knowing nothing.!2) And what concerns specifically the faith in the forgiveness of sins: whoever has a faith "imposed" on him by the apparition of Christ, and not merely stemming from the Word of the Gospel and having the Gospel as his object, believes the forgiveness of his sins not on the basis of the divine promise, but on the basis of subjective impressions, changes, transformations, which he has "experienced" or thinks he has experienced. He stands in the middle of the camp of Rome and the enthusiasts. The object and thus also the essence of the justifying faith is abandoned. This is why the Lutheran
(the apostles) etc eué (on Christ). [believe on Me through their [the Apostles’ ] Word.
Confessions emphasizes so strongly the fact that the fides iustificans has as its object the forgiveness of sins offered in the Word: Diximus promissionem et fidem correlativa esse, and: Fides iustificans est velle et accipere oblatam promissionem remissionis peccatorum et iustificationis. [We have said that promise and faith are correlative, and: Justifying faith is willing and accepting the offered promise of forgiveness of sins and justification.]!7> 9. The faith of children. Saving faith is found not only in adults, but also in children. Scripture teaches this by a. directly attributing faith to children, Matt. 18:6: 01 ptkpot Ol MloTEvbovTEs sic éué (scil. Xpiotdn) [‘little ones which believe in me;
kingdom of heaven, Mark. 10:14: tv yap toobtHv Eotiv H Bactigia Tod Osod; Matt. 19:14; Luke 18:16 Anyone who denies faith to children does not do so on the basis of Scripture, but in contradiction to Scripture, for rationalistic reasons. The core of this has always been: children, because they have not yet come to the use of reason, are not yet capable of the influence of the Holy Spirit and thus of faith. On the other hand, Scripture not only testifies to the fact of the faith of children, as has just been demonstrated, but also expressly adds that the old must first be reduced to the child before they can enter the Kingdom of God. So little is the child's condition or the fact that he has not yet come to his senses an obstacle to becoming a believer. Luke 18:17: dujv Aéyo@ dyiv Gc Gv py SéENtaL TV Baotrsiav tod Osod wc natdiov,
48. [Trigl. 135, Art. IV [IT], 48]
matdtov ToLovto, Vv. 5, as "real children" but as adult "simple and undemanding believers". But there is no reason to 'give' zatdiov in v. 5 a different meaning than in v. 4, where zo1diov undoubtedly designates a "real child": dot1¢ ovv tamewmost EQVTOV Hs To Tadiov Tovto KTA. Meyer has made dogmatic exegesis here. The right thing has.even de Wette.
of course so much as "to believe". With reference to the version of "children" here, Luther rightly observes: Although the word 'children' here is meant to refer to the old, as Christ calls his disciples, it is certain that he is speaking of those who are younger than the young, that it is said that he is speaking of the young man of the house, who is under fifteen or eighteen years of age, not excluding anyone from the years up to the first year, for these are all called children. (Sz. L. XI, 493.) od LN sioéA Bn sic adtijv [Verily, I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein’’]. Only the means by which God ignites faith in children can be questionable. This will be discussed in more detail in the Doctrine of Baptism. Concerning the ability of the children to receive the influence of the Holy Spirit or to become believers, the example of John the Baptist, who was already filled with the Holy Spirit in his mother's womb (Luke 1:15) is conclusive. This is, however, an extraordinary case from which no rule can be derived, but it proves stringently enough that children who have not yet come to use reason can believe. We cannot explain the exact nature of the faith of children. But on the basis of Scripture it is absolutely necessary to state that it is a faith that actually seizes Christ, Matt. 18:6: o1 miotevovtsc sic Eué. So the Lutheran teachers do not go beyond Scripture when they call the faith of the children fides actualis and reject the habitus otiosus (inactive state) and the mera potentia (the mere possibility of future faith) as a description of the faith of the children. They also say that the faith of children is not the fides reflexa, the faith associated with consciousness, but the fides directa, the faith that seizes the object peculiar to faith, Christ, the Savior of sinners. When of the modernist Thomasius says that the Holy Spirit in Baptism "seizes the innermost life of the soul of the child and turns it to grace", but does not want to call this "faith",!?>) this is related to the synergistic version of faith as a "conscious behavior" or a "conscious moral act". That faith is superior to consciousness is something that Luther explained very well when he wrote: "Tell me, then, where is the reason of the Christian believer when he sleeps, but his faith and God's grace never leaves him? Can faith remain here without the intervention of reason, so that it does not become aware of it, why should it also not begin in children before reason knows something about it? Again, I would also like to say of all the states in which a Christian lives and works or has to work, that he does not become aware of faith and reason, and yet faith does not abandon it. (St. L. XI, 495.)
Faith in various meanings and terminology. "Faith" (atottc) in the Scriptures also means faithfulness, reliability, both in God (Rom. 3:3; 2 Tim. 2:13) and in people (Gal. 5:22). That miotic Gal. 5:22 is to be taken in the meaning of "faithfulness" is clear from the position between the Christian virtues listed.!>® "Faith" in this sense is of course not to be included in justification, but belongs in the chapter on sanctification and good works. — From justifying faith, which has for its object only the forgiveness of sins offered in the Gospel, there is also to be distinguished faith insofar as it is directed to the divine promises of bodily goods and makes these bodily goods partakers, because it is fides iustificans only in that it trusts in the promise of the forgiveness of sins. But it must be noted here that trust in God, in so far as he promises bodily goods (for example, protection from danger and misfortune), always presupposes trust in the promise of the forgiveness of sins. No one will place himself, even for one night, in the saving hands of God unless he has faith in his heart that God has forgiven his sins. Luther and Chemnitz explain this in detail.!°5 Chemnitz’ longer version is summarized in the words Est sane differentia inter fidem apprehentem Christum, qui est finis legis ad iustitiam omni credenti, et inter exercitia fidei, quae circa alia oblecta versantur, sed camouflage illa ipsa exercitia fidei semper praesupponunt tanquam fundamentum Deum fide reconciliatum et eo semper reducuntur, ut certa sit fides et firma promissio in aliis obiectis. Et haec explicatio confirmatur illustri sententia Pauli 2 Cor. 1:20: Quotquot sunt promissiones, in Christo sunt vai kat aunv [Google]. For this reason, trust in God's promise in bodily things is in any case a sure sign (signum) that faith in the forgiveness of sins (the fides iustificationis) dwells in the heart, and this further explains that faith which has the object temporal things '?°®) is also called
est, hic locum non habet.
faith in the forgiveness of sins. In this sense, Luther says: "In this way, even the faith of temporal things which is not yet seen before our eyes is identical (eadem fides) with the faith of justification and forgiveness of sins, by which we conclude and certainly believe that God is favorable and gracious to us and that He will faithfully and surely give us what He promises to give.! — Following the subjective term, according to which téong denotes the trust in the Gospel's gracefulness, the word is also used objectively, namely to denote the "economy of faith" or the doctrine that people yapis épyav vonov become just and saved through faith in the Gospel. Acts 6:7: Many priests DdANKOVOV TH Tiotet; Gal. 1:23: Paul now preaches tiv aiotw fv mote émop0et. Jude 3 then already designates tionc the whole Christian teaching when Judas exhorts the Christians éxayoviCeoOa1 th nag mapado0Eion toic ayioic miotet. This happens according to the principle: Denominatio fit a parte potiori [Denomination takes place on the part of the superior), because faith in the Gospel is the characteristic part of the whole Christian doctrine. Older theologians have often unnecessarily taken mioyic in an objective sense. But the assertion that mioyic is always used only subjectively in the New Testament cannot be upheld. Even those who say that "faith" is always to be taken subjectively think of it objectively in places like the one mentioned, namely as "economy of faith", as "the way of salvation from faith", as "the word of faith", etc. In recent times one has partly come back from the assertion that mions is only subjectively used in Scripture. On mions of Jud. 3, 20 Grimm remarks: argumentum fidei christianae sive ea, quae a Christianis creduntur [the argument of the Christian faith, or those things which are believed by Christians] and Preuschen: "doctrinally shaped content of Christian preaching". '*® Hereby
vocationis habet coniunctam necessario fidem iustificationis, cum sit in verbum vocantis Dei fidens ac praesumens; that is to say: if a pastor believes that God has called him to the ministry, he has a sure sign in it that he is also in the justifying faith.
objectively, namely as a norm for "prophecy", when he translates: "If someone has prophecy, it is similar to faith. In the church postille (XII, 334), Luther explains that "similar to faith" as follows: "Hereby all doctrine and interpretation of the Scriptures, which lead us out of our works, is utterly rejected.... For what teaches us to cast out sin, and to be saved and pious, and to have a good conscience before God, other than by faith alone, without works, is immediately no more like faith, nor rhymes with it. In his last sermon delivered in Wittenberg on January 17:1546 (St. L. XI, 1169 ff.), Luther then continues to counter "according to faith" with the human "conceit" in general, which without God's word about God and divine things makes its own thoughts. Luther's combination of thoughts is that the faith that seeks forgiveness of sins only in Christ is also active in that it keeps to Christ's word with regard to all teachings. Most recent commentators have dismissed Luther's view of Romans 12:6 as untenable and "antiquated". They want to use the subjective faith of those gifted with the zpogntsia [prophecy], or more precisely: the subjective assurance of faith that grows for the individual prophet from the measure of faith assigned to him. Read, for example, Zahn on Rom. 12:6. Luthardt expresses the same thought in this way: The prophet should "not increase himself falsely", that is, he should not say more than what he is confident is true according to the measure of his faith. The thought is certainly not contrary to Scripture. Just as no Christian should say more than he believes to be true, this rule naturally applies to the prophets of whom the apostle, Rom. 12, 1 Cor. 14, and others speak. The opposite would imply untruthfulness, which is forbidden in every individual. So it is not a difference in doctrine if Rom. 12:6 mitotic is understood by the "faith confidence" of the prophets. But the question is whether Luther's version of faith as an objective norm for the activity of rponteia does not deserve preference. The rejection of Luther's view is based on several incorrect assumptions:. the assumption that ziottc is always to be taken in a subjective sense, whereas the examples given above can be compared; 2. the assumption that avadoyia here, v. 6, "is not different from pétpov, v. 3" (Meyer). Whereas Philippi rightly remarks: "It is much more likely that the change of étpov [measure] and é&vaAoyia [ratio] could indicate a different thought from the start. The arbitrary assumption that uétpov and avaAoyia are factually identical is connected with the fact that Meyer allows himself the paraphrase to the words katé thv avadoyiav miotems THs MiotEws: "According to the relationship of their faith the prophets have to use their prophetic gifts. The "theirs" is read in here. However, v. 3 clearly expresses in the words "every one according to whom God has distributed the measure of faith" that there is talk about the faith of the individuals concerned. But v. 6 simply states that prophecy should act "according to the right proportion of the faith". Nothing is said here about the faith of the person who exercises mpognteia. 3. The rejection of Luther's view is mostly based on an overstretching of the concept of prophecy 1 Cor. 14, 1 Thess. 5 by thinking of "immediate revelation", or at least of "special God-inspired speech". But such people were not the prophets described by the apostle in the above- mentioned passages. With regard to these prophets, the apostle certainly says on the one hand: "The prophecy "living faith," it should be noted: The faith is alive insofar as it embraces Christ or the promise of grace. By doing good works, it is not alive, but rather proves to be alive before men.!7°)) The origin of faith in the gospel or the doctrine of conversion. (De conversione.) The apostasy from the Gospel and the return to the Roman doctrine of works, which Luther feared in his own midst,!?© appeared first and foremost in the doctrine of the origin of faith or in the doctrine of conversion, Luther (xpo@nteiac) do not despise!" 1 Thess. 5:20. But on the other hand the apostle insists that one has to watch this prophet closely. Paul immediately follows the admonition in 1 Thess. 5:20: "Do not despise prophecy" with the further admonition in v. 21: "But examine all things, and keep that which is good. And 1 Cor. 14:37 the apostle explicitly says: "If anyone thinks he is a prophet (si tic Soket Sokei TPoHTIs sivar), let him acknowledge (extytw@oxétw) what I am writing to you, for the commandments of the LORD are found there. So these prophets were people who were not directly inspired, but were bound by the words of the apostles and the prophets (Eph. 2:20) as the norm of their prophetic activity. These prophets belong in a gulf with the prophets, which, thank God, we still have even now in distant churches, when church members are driven by the Holy Spirit to teach on the basis of Scripture, for example in church meetings. Everything we read in 1 Cor. 14 and elsewhere (1 Cor. 11:4; 13:9; 1 Thess. 5:20-21) from mpognteioa and mpogntevew fits into this. If the question of truth and certainty arose with these prophets, they had to read the Scriptures and ask apostles like Paul: In short, they were prophets who could only come out as preachers and interpreters of the words of other people, namely the apostles and prophets in the true sense of the word. They were, if they did not improperly "exalt themselves", "interpreters of the Scriptures", but not makers of Scripture. Paul reminds them of this barrier with the words: site mpognteiav (EYOVTEG), KATO TIV Gvadoyiav Tic Tiotews (TpogntEedm pLEv). Therefore Luther and the ancient theologians rightly find in Rom 12:6 also an "exegetical principle" expressed. It is precisely in this passage that a principle is pronounced which, like all teaching in the church, call 4 ". We as exegetes, like those prophets, cannot make Scripture, but can always only recite or interpret Scripture.
Melanchthon’s synergism?] had not only sharply rejected Erasmus' proposition that the natural man still had the ability to incline himself to God's grace (facultas applicandi se ad gratiam), but had also emphatically pointed out that Erasmus' error formed the very foundation of the Papacy. Luther had called all other points of contention with Rome "childishness" and "remote things" in comparison with the question of whether man's natural will still has power in spiritual matters. He had written against Erasmus: "I laud and praise this very much in you, that you alone, before all others, have attacked the thing itself, that is, the central point, and not me with those far-flung things (alienis illis causis). of the papacy, purgatory, indulgences and similar things which are more childish (nugae) than things.... You alone have seen the point which is really at issue, and you have come to my throat (cardinem rerum vidisti et ipsum iugulum petisti), for which I thank you from my heart."!7°). In Schmid-Hauck!*% the correct remark can be found: "By far the most important among the doctrinal struggles of the 16th century is the synergistic struggle. For if Melanchthon and the Philippists now also spoke of justification by faith (fide) or by faith alone (sola fide), the speech had lost its Christian meaning. If the faith to which justification is ascribed has come about through human participation, namely through the ability to send oneself to grace, then faith is no longer, as in Scripture, in opposition to the works of man (Rom 3:28; 4:6), but has itself been made a partial work of man, and with the Christian doctrine of justification without the law works through faith in the Gospel, which promises forgiveness of sins without the law works, it is over. It then comes to the same conclusion as Luther against Erasmus,
that the Pelagians require more, the Synergists less for the works of men as the price for their salvation.!7°). 267) Synergism is just as incompatible with the Christian doctrine of justification as Calvinism. As far as the synergists of the seventeenth century and the newer positive theologians are concerned, they usually avoid synergism in Melanchthonian form, that is, they avoid talking about a capacity of the natural man to send himself to grace. They prefer to speak of the way in which man, through the right use of the powers of grace that are communicated, determines the acceptance of grace. But they too think of a person who, before his conversion, has the ability to make proper use of the powers of grace that have been communicated. So only the way of speaking is changed. In fact, it remains with Erasmus' and Melanchthon’s facultas applicandi se ad gratiam. Because the representatives of synergism are interested in awakening in themselves and in others the idea that they have left the sola gratia in spite of everything, they are induced to operate with a whole series of illusory reasons. We must deal with these pseudo- reasons. But first we will present the doctrine of conversion in contrast to ‘old and new errors’ in more detail than could be done in an overview of the order of salvation.